Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14473
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.HEMALATHA
R.Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police – Respondent
A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust without evidence of initial dishonest intent.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust - IPC Sections 406, 415, 420 - The court found that the essential elements of cheating and criminal breach of trust were not established as the business transaction lacked dishonest intention and was civil in nature.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner ordered medicines on credit from the de facto complainant but failed to repay the full amount due, resulting in a complaint filed under IPC Sections 406 and 420.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that there were no sufficient grounds to charge the petitioner with criminal breach of trust or cheating, as the debt arose from a business transaction lacking fraudulent intent.
Issues: Whether the ingredients for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC were made out in the case at hand.
Ratio Decidendi: Criminal charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC require clear evidence of dishonest intention and cheating from the outset, which was absent in this case, making the dispute a civil matter.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, quashing the final report.
O R D E R
Seeking to quash the final report in C.C.No.461 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, the present Criminal Original Petition is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows:
(i) The second respondent/de facto complainant is running a pharmacy in the name and style of M/s.Arasan Medical Agencies. The present petitioner/accused placed orders with the de facto complainant for supply of medicines on credit basis, on the promise that he would pay the amount to the de facto complainant within 15 days. The de facto complainant accordingly supplied medicines to the accused on credit basis. But, the accused failed to re-pay the amount as promised by him. According to the de facto complainant, as on the date of his complaint (16.11.2019), the accused was liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,67,338/- to him and that with a criminal intention to cheat him, the accused did not re-pay the same.
(ii) Based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil registered F.I.R. in Crime 31/2019 against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The Sub-Inspector of Police after concluding investigation laid a final report in C.C.No. 461 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of .
3. Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would contend that the petitioner/acccused had business transaction with the de facto complainant and he is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. It is his further submission that there are no ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC and therefore, the final report in C.C.No.461 of 2020 is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent police would contend that the police after conducting proper investigation filed the final report and therefore, there is no good ground to quash the same. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the present Criminal Original Petition.
5. Mr.Ajmal Khan, the learned senior counsel for the de facto complainant would contend that the present petitioner with an intention to cheat the de facto complainant did not re-pay the amount due to him. 6. A perusal of the F.I.R. and the final report shows that the de facto complainant was supplying medicines to the accused on credit basis as detailed below:
| Sl. No. | Date | Invoice No. | Amount |
| 1 | 24.05.2019 | 1900073005765 | Rs.83162.00 |
| 2 | 24.05.2019 | 1900073005766 | Rs.61713.00 |
| 3 | 24.05.2019 | 1900073005768 | Rs.26463.00 |
| 4 | 25.05.2019 | 1900073005880 | Rs.162797.00 |
| 5 | 25.05.2019 | 1900073005884 | Rs.47951.00 |
| 6 | 25.05.2019 | 1900073005882 | Rs.32862.00 |
| 7 | 28.05.2019 | 1900073006151 | Rs.64826.00 |
| 8 | 28.05.2019 | 1900073006198 | Rs.106068.00 |
| 9 | 28.05.2019 | 1900073006201 | Rs.19377.00 |
| 10 | 28.05.2019 | 1900073006210 | Rs.54876.00 |
| 11 | 29.05.2019 | 1900073006271 | Rs.86376.00 |
| 12 | 29.05.2019 | 1900073006336 | Rs.181827.00 |
| 13 | 30.05.2019 | 1900073006367 | Rs.12091.00 |
| 15 | 30.05.2019 | 1900073006382 | Rs.179219.00 |
| 16 | 30.05.2019 | 1900073006411 | Rs.182502.00 |
| 17 | 31.05.2019 | 1900073006520 | Rs.56805.00 |
| 18 | 31.05.2019 | 1900073006521 | Rs.121118.00 |
| 19 | 31.05.2019 | 1900073006549 | Rs.21785.00 |
| 20 | 01.06.2019 | 1900073006655 | Rs.54358.00 |
| 21 | 01.06.2019 | 1900073006679 | Rs.45625.00 |
| 22 | 07.06.2019 | 1900073007359 | Rs.275504.00 |
| 23 | 07.06.2019 | 1900073007362 | Rs.164674.00 |
| Total | Rs.20,41,979/- |
7. According to the de facto complainant, out of the above sum of Rs.20,41,979/-, the accused paid Rs.4,74,641/- on various dates and as on 16.11.2019, a sum of Rs.15,67,338/- is due and liable to be paid by the accused.
8. It is not known as to why the de facto complainant did not file a suit for recovery of money from the accused. On the other hand, he had lodged a co
