Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5195
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM
K. Azhagarasan
Versus
K. Palanichamy
Crl.O.P.No. 19641 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007
Decided On :12-02-2010
For the Petitioner:ARL. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for AL. Gandhimathi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Rathinavel, Advocate.
To constitute an offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC, fraudulent or dishonest deception with the intention to cause wrongful gain or loss must be proven.
Headnote:
Cheating - Real Estate Business - Sections 23, 24, 25, 415, 420 IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions of wrongful gain, dishonesty, fraudulence, and cheating under Sections 23, 24, 25, 415, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized the necessity of proving fraudulent or dishonest deception to constitute an offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The judgment highlighted the importance of intention to cause wrongful gain or loss and the need for careful scrutiny of evidence before summoning the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash proceedings against him in a case involving alleged offenses under Section 420 IPC. The complainant entered into a real estate agreement based on false representations and legal opinions, leading to a loss of Rs.10,00,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not act dishonestly or fraudulently, as there was no evidence of his intention to cause wrongful gain or loss. The court emphasized that the agreement and payment were solely between the complainant and the first accused, and the petitioner had no direct involvement.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner's opinion and actions constituted an offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of proving fraudulent or dishonest deception to constitute an offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC. It highlighted the importance of intention to cause wrongful gain or loss and the need for careful scrutiny of evidence before summoning the accused.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
1. The petitioner, who is the second accused in a case pending in C.C.No.3646 of 2007 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in respect of alleged offences under Section 420 I.P.C. seeks to quash the proceedings against him.
2. The complaint avers as follows:
"3. That during the middle of the year 2003 the complainant decided to enter into real estate business and hence he told his interest to enter into the real estate business to one Mr. G.BABU, Son of G.Gurunathan, Hindu aged now about 35 years, residing at premises bearing Municipal Door No.8, 3rd Street, Thillaigar Nagar, Ennore, Chennai600 057 who was to known to the complainant for the past five years. And he took the complainant on 15.8.2003 to A1 and he introduced the complainant to A1 signifying his interest in the real estate business.
4. That A1 introduced himself the complainant as a real estate broker and he further told the complainant that there was one property on an extent of forty five grounds, comprised in T.S.No.87, Block No.24, adjacent to K2 Ayanpuram Police Station, Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023, belonging to one Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR, Son of Late Lakshmana Chettiar, Hindu, then aged about 68 years, residing at premises bearing Municipal Door No.652, Dr.Ambedkar Street, Raja Rajeswari Nagar, Madipakkam, Chennai-600 091. A1 further represented that the said property of Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR had come for sale and the said Mr. L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR had constituted A1 as his Attorney vide a Deed of General Power of Attorney dated 27.3.2002 registered as Document No.320 of 2002 with the office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Mylapore, Chennai authorising him to dispose of the said 45 grounds of land.
5. That A1 also represented to the complainant on the same day, i.e., on 15.8.2003 itself that he could take the complainant to the residence of his Advocate, A2 herein at premises bearing Corporation Door No.68/3, L.B.Road, Adyar, Chennai-600 020 and would obtain legal opinion from A2 for the said property and if the legal opinion signified that if Mr.l.kANNAPPA CHETTIAR was the absolute owner of the said property, the complainant could further proceed with the transaction with A1. Accordingly on 31.8.2003 A1 took the complainant to the residence of A2 and introduced the complainant to A2, stating that the complainant came for obtaining legal opinion for the said property. On the request made by A1, A2 agreed to give the complainant his legal opinion on the title of the said 45 grounds of land belonging to Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR but A2 stated that he would give the legal opinion as if the said Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR applied to him for obtaining legal opinion as he was the owner of the said property. Then A2 asked A1 and the complainant to come his residence on 5.9.2003 to get his legal opinion.
6. That on 5.9.2003, A2 furnished his legal opinion to the complainant on the title of the said 45 grounds of land at Ayanavaram, Chennai which categorically stated that the said Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR was the absolute owner of the said property. Believing the representations made by A1 and the legal opinion given by A2 to the effect that the said Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR was the absolute owner of the said property of 45 grounds of land of Ayanavaram, Chennai, the Complainant entered into an agreement for sale dated 5.12.2003 with Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR represented by A1 in his capacity as his Attorney and the complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/-to A1 at the residence of A1. In fact A1 had not introduced Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR to the complainant till to date.
7. That thereafter the complainant could not find A1 for years together. And the complainant did not know what to do with the agreement for sale deed 5.12.2003 that he entered into with Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR through A1 as Mr.L.KANNAPPA CHETTIAR himself was not known to the complainant in person.
8. That in the meantime on 10.10.2006 the complainant placed an order for printing
