Civil disputes lack criminal intent necessary for cheating charges under IPC.

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in CC No.4292/2014 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Irinjalakkuda (‘trial court’), which in turn has originated from Crime No.262/2014 registered by the Pudukkad Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 415 , 417 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , which in turn is registered on the basis of Annexure A1 private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent.

2. The petitioners have filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case to quash the above proceedings on the assertion that the dispute between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent is purely civil in nature.

3. The case of the 2^nd respondent in Annexure A1 complaint and the prosecution case in Annexure A3 final report, in brief, is as follows:

The 2^nd respondent and petitioners 1 and 2 are friends and are doing real estate business. In connection with a real estate transaction, petitioners 1 and 2 had to pay Rs.17,40,000/- to the 2^nd respondent. However, they paid only Rs.7,00,000/-. Subsequently, on 28.11.2013, the 1^st petitioner, towards repayment of the balance amount of Rs.10,40,000/-, had deliberately drawn a cheque by writing the figures of the amount in the payees name column and given it to the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st petitioner drew the cheque with the help of the 3^rd accused. When the 2^nd respondent presented the cheque to the bank for collection, the same was returned with an endorsement “payment stopped by drawer”.

Thus, the petitioners have cheated the 2^nd respondent.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even if the allegations in Annexure A1 complaint and Annexure A3 final report are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the offences alleged against the petitioners. There is no specific allegation or materials to substantiate that the petitioners had the intention to cheat the 2^nd respondent, right from the inception of the contract, which is a necessary ingredient to attract the above offences. Furthermore, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The complaint has been filed only for the purpose of giving a cloak of criminality to the transactions. It is without looking into the above relevant aspects, the learned Magistrate had forwarded the complaint to the Investigating Officer, who, in turn, has filed the final report. Even if the petitioners withstand the ordeal of the trial, it is not going to result in a conviction. Hence, the proceedings may be quashed.

6. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent vehemently opposes this Criminal Miscellaneous Case. He submits that the contentions raised in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case are matters to be decided by the trial court. There are specific allegations against the petitioners, that they consciously drew the cheque in order to defeat the petitioner’s entitlement for the remaining consideration. The petitioners had the mens rea to cheat the 2^nd respondent right at the time entering into the transaction. Therefore, this Court may not embark upon a mini-trial and quash the proceedings.

7. The essence of the 2^nd respondent’s case is that, the petitioners 1 and 2, with an intention to make unlawful gain and to make unlawful loss to the 2^nd respondent, had entered into the business transaction with the 2^nd respondent, assuring him a pro Rs. 17,40,000/-. However, they paid him only Rs.7,00,000/- and issued a cheque for the balance amount of Rs.10,40,000/-, with the help of the 3^rd petitioner, who deliberately filled up the cheque by writing the figures of the amount a