IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Mageshbabu & Others - Appellant
Versus
A.D.S. Sugumar - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 6086 of 2022 & Crl.M.P. No. 3388 of 2022
Decided On : 13-09-2022
Abuse of Process of Law - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 120(b), 420, 294(b), 506(1) I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 415, 420, 294(b), 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) - The court analyzed the allegations and found that the offense of cheating under Section 420 I.P.C. and other related offenses were not attracted due to lack of dishonest intention and specific instances of threat and abusive words. The court highlighted the legal provisions of Section 415 I.P.C. and its interpretation to conclude that the mere assurance for repayment without intention to deceive does not constitute the offense of cheating. The court also emphasized the requirement of specific instances for offenses under Section 294(b) and 506(1) I.P.C., and the inability to infer conspiracy based on the presence of family members during the financial transaction.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a private complaint alleging financial transactions and non-repayment of a loan, leading to criminal proceedings against the accused under Sections 120(b), 420, 294(b), 506(1) I.P.C. The accused contended that the complaint was an abuse of process of law, while the respondent opposed the quashment of the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not make out any offense and amounted to an abuse of process of law. It highlighted the lack of dishonest intention and specific instances for certain offenses, ultimately quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of the offenses under Sections 420, 294(b), 506(1) I.P.C. based on the allegations of financial transactions and non-repayment of a loan, and the contention of abuse of process of law by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 415 I.P.C. and the requirement of dishonest intention for the offense of cheating, as well as the need for specific instances to establish offenses under Sections 294(b) and 506(1) I.P.C. It emphasized that the mere assurance for repayment without intention to deceive did not constitute the offense of cheating.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings against the accused were quashed. The Trial Court was directed to proceed against the other accused as per law and dispose of the main case within six months.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to call for the records in C.C.No.5 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thiruvannamalai and quash the same.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2022 which has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 120(b), 420, 294(b) and 506(1) I.P.C. on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrat No.1, Thiruvannamalai.
2. The crux of the allegations in the private complaint is as follows:
2.a. The defactco complainant and the accused family are known for the past 30 years. The accused family running a Petrol Bunk and Rice Mill and there were a financial transaction between them for many years. The accused have borrowed money from the defacto complainant and repaid. When the matter stood thus, on 02.10.2018 the Petitioner herein approached the defacto complainant and informed him that A7, sister son of A1, required urgently Rupees one Crore in order to redeem his property and it is also stated that A1 and A7 are doing Rice Mill business in Chennai. As A7 is not known to the defacto complainant at the instance of A1 to A4 the defacto complainant advanced rupees one Crore loan to A7. All the accused were assured that the sum would be returned within a month. At the time of receiving of the amount, A7 has acknowledged the receipt of money and also handed over the cheques. However, A1 to A4 have not made any attempt to get the money from A7. Whenever the defacto complainant asked money, A1 abused him. In respect of which a panchayat was also conduced on 26.11.2020, wherein it was agreed that the amount would be returned after the marriage of A1's daughter. However, the amount has not been paid. Thereafter, A7 has given 5 cheques, each Rs.20 lakhs dated 17.02.2021, 24.02.2021, 10.03.2021, 20.03.2021 and 30.03.2021. When the cheques were presented for collection they were dishonoured. In this regard the defacto complainant has given a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and he has also filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.in Crl.M.P.No.1076 of 2021. However, the District Crime Branch has filed a false report which was ordered to be investigated under Section 202 Cr.P.C.to the Respondent Police. Again the police have filed a report after investigation. Thereafter, the Court took cognizance of the offence on the basis of the private complaint.
2.b. Mr.V. Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioner has been robed unnecessarily. Merely because A7 has received loan amount from the defact complainant and failed to repay the same, only in order to put a pressure to the family members, the petitioners have been unnecessarily robed. It is his contention that a similar complaint has been given under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C., and the District Crime Branch has enquired thoroughly as against the Petitioners and held that no criminal offence is made out and filed a detailed report. Thereafter, private complaint has been filed without challenging the earlier order. The Maigstrate has directed the police to enquire the complaints pending in different police stations, wherein the respondent police given a report as if the offence is made out. It is nothing but forum shopping and different police station have been used to robe the entire family members. It is his contention that the present petitioners have been arrayed as A1 to A4. A1 and A4 are brothers, A2 is wife of A1 and A3 is daughter of A1. A7 is the sister son of A1. A5 to A7 are not before this Court.
2.c. It is his contention that admittedly previous complaint has been given to the District Crime Branch wherein enquiry was made and report has been filed by the District Crime Branch to the effect that there is no criminal case made out. Thereafter, complaint has been forwarded to the different police stations and reports have been obtained as if
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offense of cheating under Section 420 I.P.C. requires dishonest intention from the inception, and the lack of such intention and specif....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of the prosecution was an abuse of process of law, as the allegations did not establish an offense and had been rejected in pre....
Criminal law cannot address purely civil disputes without clear evidence of fraudulent intent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that factual disputes should be adjudicated in a trial court, and vague or improbable allegations may constitute an abuse of process of law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.