Allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC require proof of mens rea at inception; mere breach of contract does not equate to criminal fraud.

O R D E R

The Crl.M.C. is filed to quash Annexure I final report and all further proceedings in C.C. No.1623/2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam (“Trial Court” for brevity).

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the above case, which was registered on the basis of Annexure II F.I.S in crime No.7/2019 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur, alleging the commission of an offense punishable under Section

420 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case, in brief, in the final report, is that, the petitioner had obtained Rs.50,000/- from the 2^nd respondent, agreeing to get him accreditation for starting a “Vijnan Kendra” (Knowledge Centre) under a Central Government sponsored scheme by name “Pradhan Mantri Koushal Vikas Yojana”, for giving training to interested candidates. The petitioner has also promised to the 2^nd respondent that, on completion of the course by each candidate, the 2^nd respondent would be paid Rs.3,000/- as commission for each candidate. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent arranged the necessary infrastructure, including the rent for premises, to start the centre by spending Rs.10,00,000/-. However, the accreditation for the centre from the Ministry got delayed. Further, though the petitioner got the centre registered in the name of the 2^nd respondent, he gave his bank account number and e-mail ID and fraudulently got the commission credited to his bank account, and thus, cheated the 2^nd respondent.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. Although the service of notice is completed on the 2^nd respondent, there is no appearance for him.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that, even if the allegations in Annexure I final report are taken at its face value, it would not attract the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code . In fact, the petitioner's agency and the 2^nd respondent had entered into Annexure IV agreement on 08.03.2017, whereby the 2^nd respondent agreed to provide the necessary infrastructure to start the centre. But, the 2^nd respondent provided the necessary infrastructure and fulfilled the conditions for accreditation only eight months after executing the agreement. It is only due to the willful laches on the part of the 2^nd respondent that the accreditation got delayed. Moreover, in view of the conditions in Annexure IV agreement, it can never be said that the petitioner had the mens rea to cheat the 2^nd respondent at the time of entering into the contract, which is the necessary ingredient to attract the offence under IPC . The crime has been registered only to pressurize the petitioner to yield to the unlawful demands of the 2^nd respondent. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. Hence, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.MC. She submits that there are specific allegations attributed against the petitioner. Therefore, this court may not embark upon a mini trial and hold that the petitioner has not committed the above offence. Hence, the Crl.MC may be dismissed.

7. The essence of the prosecution case is that the petitioner received Rs.50,000/- from the 2^nd respondent on the false assurance of giving him Rs.3000/- each for every candidate who completed the course in the centre, as profit. However, the petitioner failed to pay the profit and refused to return the capital.

8. On going through the materials on record, especially Annexure IV agreement, I find that the parties had, in u