IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
C.V. Thambidurai - Appellant
Versus
A. Natarajan & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.A. No. 315 of 2014
Decided On : 18-08-2023
Criminal Appeal - Cheating - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 202, 203, 204, 206 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the Indian Contract Act, 1872, focusing on the principles of agency coupled with interest, irrevocability of such agency, revocation of authority, and the need for due notice before revocation. The court also highlighted the importance of deception at the inception of a transaction for the offense of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the accused for a property. After paying the entire sale consideration, the accused unilaterally cancelled the Power of Attorney, leading to a criminal complaint for cheating.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found no intention to defraud or cheat the complainant at the time of executing the Power of Attorney. The Court upheld the complainant's civil right in a separate civil suit, concluding that the unilateral cancellation of the Power of Attorney did not constitute the offense of cheating.
Issues: The issues revolved around the unilateral cancellation of the Power of Attorney and whether it amounted to the offense of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for an offense of cheating, deception must be present at the inception of the transaction. It concluded that there was no such deception in this case, and the unilateral cancellation of the Power of Attorney did not constitute the offense of cheating.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's finding that there was no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.630 of 2007, and set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, dated 28.10.2013.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is arising out of acquittal of the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 3 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.630 of 2007, dated 28.10.2013.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondents are referred to as 'complainant' and 'accused', respectively.
3. The brief facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:
(i) Accused Nos.1 to 3 and one N.Pachiammal and S.Palaniammal/Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the owners of the land comprised in S.F.No.834/1, to an extent of 14.90 Acres, situated at Chettipalayam Village. All the accused agreed to sell the property to the complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.2,23,500/-. On 06.07.1992 all the accused executed an agreement for sale after receiving advance amount of Rs.15,000/-. Ex.P.1 is the Agreement for Sale. Thereafter, the complainant had paid balance sale consideration on various dates. Ex.P.7 series are the Receipts. After receiving the entire amount, on 09.03.1994, all the accused issued Ex.P.2 Receipt and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant with respect to the above said property. Ex.P.3 is the Power of Attorney. Thereafter, the complainant spent huge sum and formed a layout in the property, divided into plots and sold 129 sites to various persons and 54 sites were remaining for sale.
(ii) In the meanwhile, all the accused cancelled the Power of Attorney, through a registered cancellation deed, dated 16.03.2007. Ex.P.6 is the Cancellation Deed. Thereafter, the accused sent Ex.P.4 Notice to the complainant on 19.03.2007, for which, the complainant sent Ex.P.5 Reply Notice. Exs.P.8 to P.11 are the Balance Sheet of Jay Jay Associates, owned by the complainant, Income Tax Returns and Balance Sheet. All the accused after receiving entire sale consideration with an intention to cheat the complainant, cancelled the Power of Attorney.
(iii) During the pendency of trial, the said N.Pachiammal and S.Palaniammal/Accused Nos.4 and 5 died and therefore, charge against them stood abated.
4. Before the trial Court, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked, no material object was produced. On completion of examination of the witnesses on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and they denied them as false. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined, but Exs.D.1 to D.8 were marked as defence documents.
5. Considering the evidence available on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, by judgment dated 28.10.2013, found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and acquitted them, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Challenging the said judgment of acquittal, the complainant has preferred this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the accused on 06.07.1992 in respect of a property owned by the accused in Chettipalayam Village, to an extent of 14.90 Acres. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs.2,23,500/- i.e., Rs.15,000/- per Acre and on the day of entering into sale agreement, an advance of Rs.15,000/- was paid to the accused by the complainant. The entire sale consideration was paid in parts on various dates between 08.10.1992 and 27.02.1994. On receipt of entire sale consideration, the accused executed a registered Power of Attorney in the name of the complainant on 09.03.1994 to deal with the property. Thereafter, the complainant made plots on the sai
AI
Deception must be present at the inception of a transaction for the offense of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code.
Criminal liability under IPC requires clear evidence of intentional wrongdoing, which was absent; thereby, genuine civil disputes cannot sustain criminal charges.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to fulfill contractual obligations can constitute cheating under Section 415 IPC if it causes harm to the other party.
The court found that a civil dispute may constitute a criminal offence under S.420 IPC if fraudulent intent is present, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not warrant quashing criminal pro....
The relevance of civil proceedings in a criminal case and the need for independent determination of the validity and genuineness of documents in civil proceedings.
Point of law: stoic silence on the part of the plaintiffs for more than 2 years after executing the power of attorney and their own sister being the party to all the subsequent transactions, the thir....
The court quashed proceedings against the accused under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, determining that the allegations lacked essential elements required for prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a judicious consideration of bail applications, especially in cases involving serious allegations such as fraudulent property t....
The main legal point established is that the documents furnished by the petitioner, including the decree from the civil court, were of sterling quality and played a crucial role in quashing the charg....
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.