The court established that the offence of cheating was prima facie made out based on the deception and induced actions causing harm, but clarified that loss of reputation alone does not constitute an offence of defamation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.9448 of 2021 pending on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore and quash the same.)

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.9448 of 2021 on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The facts leading to filing of this petition are stated as hereunder :

(i) The respondents herein filed a private complaint against one M/s.S2 Logistics and the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner, who is said to be the proprietor/partner, had approached the respondents for rendering services of customs clearance for one of his customers (importer) named M/s.Red Exports, who were importing calcium carbonate. The respondents undertook the work and accordingly, the petitioner forwarded the documents required for customs clearance to the respondents and the money for payment of customs duty and also to the shipping line.

(ii) The respondents completed all the customs clearance formalities and the goods were cleared. There was no problem in this particular transaction thereby the petitioner got into the good books of the respondents. The petitioner once again approached the respondents for clearance of uncoated calcium carbonated powder and it was also imported by the said M/s.Red Exports. The respondents received the import documents and after receiving clarification and confirmation from the petitioner, the Bill of Entry was filed by the respondents with the Chennai Sea Customs. The customs duty was also paid and at the time when the goods were about to be transported, there was an alert raised by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for brevity, the DRI) and they wanted to examine the contents of the cargo. The inspection was done in the presence of the petitioner, the manager of the said M/s.Red Exports and the respondents. It was found that cigarettes were concealed in the containers.

(iii) Proceedings were initiated by the DRI and along with the proprietor of the importer, the second respondent was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Further, the second respondent suffered incarceration for nearly 29 days. The respondents got the impression that the petitioner had intentionally concealed the contents of cigarettes, which were brought along with the declared cargo and thereby the second respondent was made to undergo untold sufferings and mental agony.

(iv) In the complaint, the respondents alleged that the petitioner had cheated and caused wrongful loss to them and that there was a loss of reputation and loss of business for the respondents. Hence, the respondents further alleged that the petitioner committed offences under Sections 415, 420, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC).

(v) The 13th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai considered the materials placed before it and the sworn statements recorded from the second respondent and took cognizance of the complaint for the offences under Section 420 and 500 of the IPC. This is put to challenge in this quash petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The main ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that none of the offences is made out against the petitioner even if the allegations made by the respondents are taken as they are. It was contended that even the respondents were found guilty by the DRI, that the second respondent also underwent prosecution along with the petitioner, that the defence taken by the respondents in the proceedings initiated by the DRI cannot translate itself into a criminal complaint and that the same is not maintainable.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner intentionally made t