The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to discourage approaching criminal courts for recovery of money and the requirement of dishonest intention under Section 420 IPC.

A private complaint has been filed against three accused for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore examined eleven witnesses including defacto complainant and has taken the case on file against A1 and A2. The case has been dropped against A3, who is wife of the 1st accused. The present petition to quash the proceedings has been filed by A1 & A2 against whom, the process has been issued. When the matter has been taken up for enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioners made an endorsement that the petition against the 2nd petitioner may be withdrawn and made his submissions for the 1st petitioner/accused alone.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was running a finance business and the accused received loans on several occasions by promising that loans will be settled in due time. It is alleged that the petitioners received such type of loans from 16 other persons and as against the defacto complainant, the liability of the 1st accused is Rs.10,50,000/-. It is further alleged that the petitioners, accepting the liability, issued cheques for payment of the same. However, the cheques were dishonoured and the defacto complainant preferred proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. Since the petitioners made false promise of payment of money and the cheque, issued by the petitioners got bounced, a private complaint has been initiated before the learned Judicial Magistrate.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at the first instance, that the prosecution is of purely civil in nature. He, on disputing about liability alleged, submitted that for dishonour of the two cheques, two cases in C.C. Nos. 876 and 117 of 2008 have been preferred before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI by the defacto complainant, which is pending. The defacto complainant, subsequently, proceeded with a private complaint. Learned Magistrate, on perusal of the materials and statements of the witnesses recorded, has erroneously come to a conclusion that the 1st petitioner along with the 2nd petitioner is responsible for payment of money. The 2nd accused has given a deed of undertaking, on behalf of the 1st accused/1st petitioner also and under such circumstances, instead of proceeding against the 2nd accused, learned Magistrate included the 1st petitioner / A1 also as accused in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner substantiated his contention by relying on a case law reported in V.Y.Jose Vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 3 SCC 78 in particular Para.28, wherein it is held as follows:

"A matter which essentially involves dispute of a civil nature should not be allowed to be the subject-matter of a criminal offence, the latter being not a short cut of executing a decree which is non-existent. The superior courts, with a view to maintain purity in the administration of justice, should not allow abuse of the process of court. It has a duty in terms of Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to supervise the functionings of the trial courts."

Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised his submissions by quoting a case reported in Duraisami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 10 SCC 233 in Para.10 wherein it is observed as below:

"The facts in the present case have to be appreciated in the light of the various decisions of this Court. When somebody suffers injury to his person, property or reputation, he may have remedies both under civil and criminal law. The injury alleged may form the basis of civil claim and may also constitute the ingredients of some crime punishable under criminal law. When there is dispute between the parties arising out of a transaction involving passing of valuable properties between them, the aggrieved person may have a right to sue for damages or compensation and at the same time, law permits the victim to proceed against the wrongdoer for having committed an offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating. Here the main