A breach of promise related to financial assistance does not suffice to constitute offences of cheating or intimidation under IPC.

C O M M O N O R D E R

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the final report in C.C.No.677 of 2023, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 406, 120B, and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

2. The allegation in the final report is that the petitioners made the second respondent/defacto complainant believe that the petitioners needed a financial assistance and that if she and her husband invested money in the petitioners’ company, Visual Yarns, they would be added as partners and would earn profits; that, based on such representation, the second respondent and her husband paid a total sum of Rs.54,00,000/- on various dates, i.e., Rs.34,00,000/- in cash, Rs.17,00,000/- through bank transfer, and Rs.3,00,000/- through ATM withdrawal; and that when the second respondent/defacto complainant demanded the money back, the petitioners abused her in filthy language and committed the offence of criminal intimidation, and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations, at best, disclose a breach of promise; that admittedly, the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant were family friends; that the allegations would suggest that it was only because the petitioners had sought for financial assistance, the second respondent/defacto complainant had transferred the money; that in any case, there is no evidence to show the receipt of cash; that a civil suit has been filed in O.S.No.302 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, which is pending trial; that the second respondent had given another complaint prior to the complaint which culminated in the impugned final report; that in the said complaint, the second respondent/defacto complainant had stated that she had borrowed money from the petitioners; that all these circumstances would suggest that the dispute is civil in nature; that the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , would not be made out; and that there is no real threat to attract the offence under Section 506 (i) of the , and therefore, the impugned final report is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the institution of a civil suit would not bar a criminal complaint if the allegations suggest the commission of offences; that the allegations would indicate that the petitioners never intended to repay any money to the second respondent/defacto complainant right from the inception, and therefore, the offence of cheating would be made out; and would strongly oppose the prayer sought for by the petitioners.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent police would reiterate the averments made in the final report and would submit that there are sufficient materials to establish the offences against the petitioners, and prayed for the dismissal of these quash petitions.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant were close family friends. It is the case of the second respondent/defacto complainant that a sum of Rs.54,00,000/- was received by the petitioners in several modes, i.e., cash, through bank transfer, and via ATM withdrawal on several dates, from 31.12.2018 to 11.10.2020. The allegations, even if accepted to be true, would suggest that there were continuous transactions between the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant. It is not a case of a single instance of receiving money by deceiving the second respondent/defacto co