The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a case under Section 420 IPC, the element of cheating as required under Section 415 IPC must be present, and the mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. must be conducted to establish a prima facie case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Brijesh Kr. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 1151 of 2017, M/s Deepak Agro vs. M/s Raghu, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station-Transport Nagar, District-Meerut along with the impugned summoning order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the A.C.J.M. Court No. 8, Meerut.

3. As per the impugned complaint, applicant and opposite party No.2 were having business relationship and during the course of business, opposite party No.2 supplied tractor accessories and other parts on different dates in the year 2006 to the applicant. Bill was also raised. It was further alleged that the applicant instead of making payment had also given cheque dated 25.1.2008 of Rs. 38,628/-, but subsequently, this cheque was bounced when presented before the bank. Thereafter, the applicant kept on assuring for making payment to opposite party No.2, but no payment was made. Finally, a complaint was filed in the year 2017. In support of his complaint, Vishal Gupta, who was manager of opposite party No.2, was also examined and the court below after perusal of the complaint and statement, summoned the applicant u/s 420 I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the impugned proceeding on the following grounds:-

i. The dispute between the applicant and opposite party no. 2 is purely a business transaction and no case is made out as the same is purely a civil dispute and there are no ingredients of cheating as defined under Section 415 I.P.C., therefore, no offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out;

ii. As the applicants were residing at a place which is outside from the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned, the mandatory inquiry as required under Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. was not conducted for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding;

iii. The impugned complaint was filed after the expiry of eleven years from the date of transaction; therefore, impugned proceeding was initiated with mala fide reason to extract money from applicant.

5. In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court:

a) Govind Prasad Kejriwal vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2020 (16) SCC 714.

b) Birla Corporation Limited vs. Adventz Investments & Holdings Ltd., reported in 2019 (6) SCC 610.

c) Lalankumar Singh & Others vs. Sate of Maharashtra, reported in 2022 SCC online SC 1383.

d) Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626.

e) Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka and another; 2023 SCC online SC 603.

6. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that while passing the impugned summoning order, learned Magistrate formed his opinion regarding prima facie case after the examination of complainant and witnesses which is sufficient for the inquiry as required under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. as per the mandate of Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 638 case.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perusal of record, it is clear from the complaint as well as impugned order that transaction between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2, was done in the year 2006 and initially two cheques were also issued by the company of applicant to opposite party no. 2. Though, it was alleged in the complaint that both the cheques were bounced but the opposite party no. 2 had not filed any complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act and subsequently after almost eleven years, impugned complaint was filed. From the perusal of complaint, it is clear that it was purely a case of business transaction between the parties and there was no element of cheating at the time of business transaction.

8. For making out a case under Section 420 IPC, element of cheating must be there as required under Section 415 IPC. Section 4