The essential ingredient of mens rea must be established to constitute the offence under Section 420 IPC.

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C No.505/2024 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class – I, Mavelikkara, which has been registered on the basis of Annexure A private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The 2nd respondent’s case in Annexure A complaint, in a nutshell, is that he was a friend of the petitioner’s late father. The petitioner is the managing trustee of the Aleykutty Memorial Charitable Trust, Ernakulam. For the smooth functioning of the above trust and its parent trust, the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent for a personal loan. Having due regard to the relationship between the parties, the 2nd respondent bank transferred Rs. 1,00,000 to the petitioner on 27.07.2016. Subsequently, on 07.11.2016, the 2nd respondent again bank transferred Rs.2,00,000 to the petitioner as a loan. After that, on 10.12.2016, the 2nd respondent again paid Rs. 1,00,000 to the petitioner as an oral loan for the medical treatment of one Jose Kutty, who is a close relative of the petitioner. The petitioner received the money from the 2nd respondent by promising to repay the money within two years, with bank interest. Despite repeated demands made by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has refused to repay the money. Thus, the petitioner has committed the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The 2nd respondent has filed an objection, inter alia, contending that the Crl.M.C is not maintainable in law. This Court may not interfere with the proceedings at the threshold and quash the same. The Trial Court has rightly taken cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC . The contention of the petitioner that the dispute is civil in nature and barred by limitation, is without merit. The petitioner received the money from the 2nd respondent on the assurance that he would repay the same within two years. The petitioner had received the money by misrepresenting that it was to be used to manage a charitable trust. The 2nd respondent is a senior citizen. The prolonging of the dispute and evading the repayment, would adversely affect the 2nd respondent. The petitioner's sole intention is to protract the determination of the complaint. The Crl.M.C is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, even if the allegation in the complaint are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the offence under Section 420 IPC . There is not a whisper in the complaint that the petitioner had allegedly received the money from the 2nd respondent with the mens rea act to cheat the 2nd respondent, which is the elementary ingredient to attract the offence under . As long as there are no such averments in the complaint, the complaint is only liable to be quashed.

6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently opposes the Crl. M.C. He submits that the petitioner received the money from the 2nd respondent on the assurance that he would use the money to run the trust. However, the petitioner has used the money for his personal needs. The petitioner had the mens rea act to cheat the 2nd respondent at the time of receiving the money. Moreover, this Court may not delve into the said question at this stage and quash the proceedings because it is a matter to be decided after trial. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

7. A reading of the allegations in An