Mere breach of contract does not constitute an offence under criminal law unless fraudulent intention is established from the outset of the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek to assail the order of cognizance dated 22.07.2016, passed by the learned SDJM, Nayagarh in ICC Case No.129 of 2015 wherein the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420 /506/34 of the IPC against the Petitioners along with another.

2. The background facts of the case are that the complainant has two schools in the name of Millennium Academy of Higher Education. One is situated at Village Panikoila under Sadar Police Station, Nayagarh, District-Nayagarh and another situates at Khandapara Road, Nayagarh. It is alleged in the complaint petition that in the month of March 2013, the Petitioners visited the office of the complainant situated at Nayagarh and discussed with the complainant regarding the betterment of students, and approached the complainant to take the package provided by the Petitioners called the ‘ClassEdge’ package for the Odia medium. It is also alleged in the complaint that Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, along with another person, Mr. Sanjib Kumar Shaw, the then employee of the Petitioners’ company, took the signatures of the complainant on some printed forms as agreement papers and took an amount of Rs.27,000/- for each of the institutions, towards signing amounts for providing the said package to Millennium Academy of Higher Education. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that after taking the aforesaid amount and signatures of the complainant, the Petitioners left the office and sent a copy of the agreement through e-mail ID of the complainant. It is also alleged that the Petitioners installed hardware in the said two schools of the complainant, but instead of providing the ‘ClassEdge’ packages in Odia medium, the Petitioners provided ‘ClassEdge’ packages in English medium to the complainant’s schools. It is further alleged that the Petitioners assured the complainant that they would replace the English medium package within a short period of time and provide the Odia medium package to the complainant’s institution. The complainant thereafter continued paying Rs.81,000/- per quarter to the Petitioners’ company, but no software in Odia medium was supplied. At this juncture, the complainant requested the Petitioners to refund Rs.54,000/-, which was the signing amount, as well as the deposited amount for three quarters, amounting to Rs.2,43,000/-, as they had failed to provide the software content in Odia medium. While the matter stood thus, on 30.11.2013, Tata Interactive Systems (T.I.S.) terminated the agreement. It is further the case of the complainant that on 13.01.2015, after termination of the agreement, the AGM (Legal) of Tata Interactive Systems sent letters to the complainant demanding an illegal amount. According to the complaint, the Petitioners failed to provide the ClassEdge package in Odia medium and fraudulently and dishonestly took away an amount of Rs.2,97,000/- from the complainant. On account of the aforesaid actions of the Petitioners, the complainant issued a pleader’s notice on 07.03.2015 to the Petitioners, as well as to the AGM (Legal) of Tata Interactive Systems, through registered post with acknowledgment due, demanding refund of the money within 15 days. It is further alleged by the complainant that on 26.04.2015 at about 9:00 A.M., accused person, namely Petitioner No.2, and Mr. Sanjib Kumar Shaw, the then employee of the company, rushed to the office of the complainant at Nayagarh and forcibly demanded the amount. When the complainant objected, Petitioner No.2 and Mr. Sanjib Kumar Sha