A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is evidence of dishonest intent from the outset of the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of the present application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri in Criminal Revision No.5 of 2022, whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in I.C.C. Case No.256 of 2021, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 419 /420/424 of the IPC against the Opposite Party pursuant to the Protest Petition filed by the Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the closure of investigation in connection with Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.333 of 2019.

2. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner and the Opposite Party had entered into a business transaction for the supply of cashew nuts. As per the agreement between the parties, the Opposite Party was to supply 36 tons (36,000 kg) of cashew nuts to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs 120/- per kg during the month of December, 2016. In pursuance of the said agreement, the Petitioner transferred a sum of Rs 37,00,000/- to the bank account of the Opposite Party on different dates through RTGS between 26.08.2016 and 15.09.2016 for ensuring smooth supply of the ordered cashew nuts. The Opposite Party, after receiving the aforesaid amount, remained silent for about two months and, upon persistent persuasion by the Petitioner, delivered only 14 tons (14,000 kg) of cashew nuts valued at Rs 17,93,400/- to the Petitioner’s factory. In that regard, the Opposite Party issued a tax invoice containing all requisite details in accordance with law and further assured the Petitioner that the balance quantity of the material would be delivered within fifteen days. However, despite waiting for a considerable period, the Petitioner did not receive any further supply. Consequently, the Petitioner requested the Opposite Party to cancel the contract and refund the remaining amount after deducting the cost of the material already supplied. Upon calculation, the Opposite Party agreed to return Rs 19,06,600/- to the Petitioner but failed to do so within the agreed period.

On 07.07.2017, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party personally and requested him to refund the said amount. However, the Opposite Party not only refused but allegedly abused the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Police for redressal of his grievance, but as the Police did not register the complaint and advised an amicable settlement, the Petitioner moved the learned District Judge, Puri (though on a mistaken motion). Subsequently, a complaint was filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Puri, registered as I.C.C. Case No.399 of 2019, wherein the learned S.D.J.M. directed the concerned Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to register an FIR and investigate.

Pursuant thereto, Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.333 of 2019 was registered and investigated. Upon completion of investigation, the Police, having found no material against the Opposite Party, submitted a closure report before the learned S.D.J.M., Puri. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed a Protest Petition, whereupon the learned Magistrate, in I.C.C. Case No.256 of 2021, after recording the initial statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and conducting an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the offences by order dated 04.01.2022.

The Opposite Party, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred Criminal Revision No.5 of 2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, who, after hearing both parties, set aside the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate vide the impugned order dated 03.06.2022 (Annexure-8).

3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in the course of hearin