O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4906 of 2018 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.

2. There are totally 2 accused and the petitioner has arrayed as A2. The A1 has already died and the entire charge has been abated. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2009, the second respondent / defacto complainant had lodged a complaint before the respondent police by stating that he being the Managing Director of M/s.Raj Television Network Limited, had entered into an agreement on 21.05.2008 with M/s.Take One Entertainment, represented by Mr.Augustine Peter / A1 and the petitioner / A2 for producing a new Tamil feature film, starring Dhanush and Shreya. The total budget of the said film was arrived as Rs.9,00,00,000/-. The A1 and A2 have jointly received a sum of Rs.14,66,010/- vide Cheque No.129548 dated 25.08.2008 towards advance for the said agreement. However, they have not commenced the shooting of the said film as per the said agreement and also did not return the money. However, after several reminders, the A1 and A2 have returned the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and gave an undertaking that they will return the remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with accrued interest and the same has not been returned so far. Therefore, the second respondent/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police, which has been registered in Crime No.262 of 2009 for offences under Sections

420 and 506(ii) of IPC.

3. On perusal of the entire allegation, it was found that it is only a money transaction between the petitioner and the second respondent / defacto complainant. Even according to the second respondent / defacto complainant, he had paid advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioner and A1 and that they had returned only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and they have failed to return the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Insofar as the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is concerned, the second respondent / defacto complainant has also entered into an agreement with the accused on 23.05.2008. Therefore, the entire transaction appears to be civil in nature and no offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out against the petitioner.

4. It is relevant to extract Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows:-

“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property — Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

5. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC are as follows :-

(i) A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415 and (ii) The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.

Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section

420 of IPC.

6. In order to attract the offences under Section 420 of IPC, there must be dishonest inducement to the person deceived to delivery any property. In the case on hand, admittedly the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and also repaid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore, the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not at all made out as against the petitioner.

7. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C is concerned, to attract the offence, threat and intention to cause an alarm are main ingredients. The third ingredient is that the intention must be to cause any person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person i