ORDER :

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the First Information Report dated 09.05.2025 in Crime No.166 of 2025 on the file of the 1^st respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(I) of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant became acquainted with the first petitioner through their respective children who were studying at SBOA School. Owing to such acquaintance, the first petitioner, along with the second petitioner, who is the mother of the first petitioner, used to visit the house of the de facto complainant and thus their relationship developed as family friendship. It is alleged that during the period from 02.06.2015 to 09.08.2018, the first and second accused received a total sum of Rs.43,50,000/- from the de facto complainant towards renovation of their house and for other miscellaneous purposes. Subsequently, when the de facto complainant had gone to London, the first petitioner is stated to have contacted her over phone and, during the period from 26.10.2018 to 13.11.2018, received a further sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. While in London, upon the request of the first petitioner, the de facto complainant purchased certain items worth Rs.2,04,600/- and sent the same to the first petitioner, who had allegedly agreed to repay the said amount. Thereafter, in the year 2022, upon the request of the first petitioner, the de facto complainant is said to have purchased electronic items worth Rs.7,36,800/-, but the first petitioner allegedly failed to return the money. When the husband of the de facto complainant got employment in Canada, the de facto complainant relocated to Canada and subsequently, demanded repayment of the amounts allegedly due. While so, the petitioners are alleged to have failed to repay the money and when questioned, are said to have threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that even as per the prosecution case, the dispute arises purely out of a monetary transaction between the parties who have admittedly been close friends for a long period. The alleged monetary transactions are stated to have taken place between the years 2015 and 2018 and even if the entire averments in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the essential ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 420 IPC are wholly absent and hence, the said offence cannot be made out against the petitioners. In support of his contention that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot co-exist and that the said offences can be attracted only when intention to defraud or dishonest intention is present, from the very beginning or inception and that for cheating, criminal intention is necessary since inception, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club 1940 Limited and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2024) 10 SCC 690].

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the allegation of criminal intimidation has been introduced only with an ulterior motive to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute, solely for the purpose of registering the present case. He further contended that the petitioners have already repaid a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- and that the 2^nd respondent is attempting to misuse the criminal process and exert pressure upon the petitioners through police intervention to secure an illegal settlement and that the ingredients necessary to attract Section 506(I) IPC are also absent as per the judgment in Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnataka and another [(2015) 7 SCC 423].

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent police contended that the petitioners have induced the de facto complainant and received a sum of Rs.60,41,400/- and refused to repay the amount and when it was demanded