The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lending of money for business purposes by a professional money lender does not necessarily constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust under the IPC.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the case in Crime No.95 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent and quash the same with regard to the petitioner.

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for entire records in Crime No.95 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the FIR against the petitioner.)

Common Order:

1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the entire records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No.95 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the First Information Report against the petitioners.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto complainant has lent a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- to A1 and A4 during the month of January 2018. Again the second respondent/defacto complainant lent another sum of Rs.12,50,000/- to them. Though they agreed to repay the amount within six months, the amount was not repaid by them. During December 2018, A1 had introduced A2 and A3 to the second respondent/defacto complainant. In the complaint lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant, it is alleged that A1 and A4 informed her that whatever amounts lent by her were invested by them in the land belonging to A2 and A3 and after completing the development and sale of lands/development of project, the amounts will be repaid to her. During that time, they also demanded Rs.90,00,000/- to complete the project. During January 2019, A1 pledged the Jewels of the complainant at Mataji Pawn Broker Shop and got a sum of Rs.7,60,000/- as loan. During 3rd July 2019, A1 to A4 came to the house of the complainant and assured that they would give back Rs.34,50,000/- within three months. They also handed over the documents and project reports relating to the loan. But as per the assurance, they did not repay the amount, and when the complainant contacted the accused, the accused threatened her with dire consequences.

3. On the above allegations, a case has been registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 in Crl.O.P.No.5998 of 2021 submitted that the complainant is a professional money lender. She used to lent money and only in that course, the money was lent to A1, A2 and A4. If the complainant is affected due to non-payment of money given by her to any of the accused, she has to invoke jurisdiction of the Civil Court for recovery of money and for civil case, no criminal complaint can be given. The same argument was adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A4 in Crl.O.P.No.6053 of 2021.

4. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the complainant had intentionally given loan of Rs.14,50,000/- and Rs.12,50,000/- on two occasions for the business purposes of A1, A2 and A4. So far as A3 is concerned, even according to the allegations of the complainant, she is no way connected with the transactions made between the complainant, A1, A2 and A4. It is not the case of the complainant that she also engaged herself along with the accused in any joint business and during that course, she entrusted any valuable property to the accused. The second respondent/defacto complainant intentionally gave a loan for a specific business purpose. The allegations would predominantly show that the violation on the part of the accused to repay the loan amount. So, it is a case based on money transaction. The assurance if any given by the accused to repay the loan amount, if it is not honoured at a later point of time cannot be construed as cheating. The rightful course open to the complainant is to file a civil case for recovery of money. In order to make out an offence under Section 420 of IPC, the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC ought to have been found to be present. Section 415 of IPC defines 'cheating' as under:-

"Section 415 of IPC: