Back
1978 Supreme(All) 200
High Court Of Allahabad
M.B. Farooqi, J.
Behari Lal : Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chandra Sharma : Respondent
Cr. Misc. Application No. 7824 of 1976
Decided On : Mar 29, 1978
Criminal intention is essential for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Headnote:
Cheating - Criminal Complaint - Quashing under Section 482 CrPC
Fact of the Case:
The applicant placed an order for tractor accessories with the opposite party and issued a cheque for payment. Later, they discovered some of the goods were defective and stopped the payment, leading to the cheque being dishonored by the bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the act of stopping the payment did not indicate criminal intention and concluded that the dispute was purely of a civil nature, constituting an abuse of the process of the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the act of stopping the payment constituted cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that criminal intention is essential for the offence of cheating, and the mere act of stopping the payment did not demonstrate such intention. Therefore, the proceedings were unsustainable in law and were quashed.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the impugned proceedings were quashed.
M.B. Farooqi, J.
1. THIS is an application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings in a criminal complaint under Section 420 IPC filed by the opposite party against the applicants in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
2. THE case set out in the complaint are like this. THE applicant placed an order with the opposite party for the supply of tractor accessories. THE opposite party supplied the goods. In lieu of price the applicants issued a cheque for Rs. 5618/-. Subsequently the applicants discovered that some of the goods supplied were defective. THEy informed the opposite party. Along side they ordered the Bank to stop payment. Accordingly the bank dishonoured the cheque ana refused payment to the opposite party.
On these facts no cheating can be inferred. Criminal intention is the gist of the offence of cheating. Merely because the applicants stopped the payment, it cannot be said that they had a criminal intention. Such intention could be inferred if it had appeared from their circumstances that they did not expect the cheque to be cashed in the usual course. Mo such circumstance has been mentioned in the complaint. In the given circumstances all that can be said is that the applicants are guilty of breach of promise. So viewed, the complaint discloses a dispute purely of a civil nature. Simply because it has been stated in the complaint that the applicants had a criminal intention right from the beginning, it would not convert the dispute into one of a criminal nature. In this view, the proceedings taken on the complaint in the trial court are unsustainable in law or rather constitute an abuse of the process of the Court and ought to be quashed.
3. IN the result, this application is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed.
Application allowed.
