Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68892
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J
B.Murugeshan – Appellant
Versus
K.Prabhu – Respondent
CRL RC(MD)No.1269 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.T.Seeni Syed Amma, For Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For the Respondents:Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, Mr.M.Sakthikumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
The court affirmed that criminal charges cannot arise from civil disputes unless clear evidence of intent to deceive is established.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 239, 397, 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b), 406, 420 - Criminal Revision Petition - Allegations of cheating and breach of contract regarding the sale of property - The learned Magistrate discharged the accused, finding that materials did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, and the dispute was determined to be civil in nature - Delay in lodging the complaint and lack of evidence led to upholding this discharge - No prima facie case established for criminal charges. (Paras 4, 12, 20)
(B) Cheating and breach of contract - The court reiterated that mere failure to perform a promise does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is shown from the beginning and appreciated that criminal processes should not be misused for civil disputes. (Paras 18, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the discharge of the accused in a case involving alleged fraudulent misrepresentation regarding property sales, where the complaint was lodged seven years after the alleged agreement, and the discharge was grounded on the absence of established dishonest intent and essential criminal elements.
Findings of Court:
The Magistrate's order was determined as legally correct, with no prima facie case against the accused under relevant IPC sections, emphasizing the boundaries between civil disputes and criminal liability.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate’s discharge order was flawed in legal reasoning or evidential basis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that for the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust, the necessary elements were absent, hence, valid grounds for discharge were identified.
Result: Criminal Revision Case dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments about the nature of the complaint and alleged delay. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. the necessity of establishing fraudulent intent for criminal charges under ipc. (Para 10 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. the court's observations on civil versus criminal proceedings. (Para 11 , 19) |
ORDER
Preface:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, in Crl.M.P. No.1141 of 2022 in C.C. No.33 of 2020, whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the petition filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the respondent/accused and discharged him from the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 406, and 420 IPC.
2. The de-facto complainant, being aggrieved by the said order of discharge, has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., 1973, contending that the impugned order is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the materials available on record.
3. Gist of the impugned order in the discharge petition:
3.1. The case of the prosecution, as projected in the final report, is that the accused had entered into an agreement with the de facto complainant on 20.07.2008 for the sale of 40 cents of land situated in Ariyur Village, originally belonging to one Nallammal, for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only), of which Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) was allegedly paid as advance. The accused is said to have represented himself as the absolute owner of the property, concealing that the said property actually belonged to Nallammal, and that two Wills dated 31.01.1994 and 16.02.1994 existed, purporting to dispose of the same property.
3.2. It was further alleged that despite repeated demands, the accused failed to execute the sale deed or return the advance amount. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint, which resulted in the registration of the case for the offences under Sections 294(b), 406, and 420 IPC.
3.3. The learned Magistrate, upon hearing both sides, observed that the alleged document between the parties was not in the nature of a sale agreement, but rather a partnership or profit-sharing arrangement relating to future transactions of sale. It was noted that the complaint was lodged seven years after the alleged agreement, that no public witnesses or revenue officials were examined, and that the investigating officer had not collected crucial records such as the encumbrance certificate or title verification documents.
3.4. The learned Magistrate held that the materials did not disclose the basic ingredients of dishonest inducement or entrustment necessary to constitute the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Similarly, the absence of particulars such as time, place, and manner of occurrence, rendered the allegation under Section 294(b) IPC unsustainable. Consequently, the learned Magistrate found that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, and that no prima facie case was made out to frame charges. The accused was therefore discharged under Section 239 Cr.P.C., 1973.
5. Grounds of Revision:
The revision petitioner has assailed the said order mainly on the grounds that, the impugned order is contrary to law, weight of evidence, and probabilities of the case. The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the materials in the charge sheet disclosed a prima facie case of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The accused had dishonestly induced the complainant to part with Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) on the false representation that he was the absolute owner of the property, thereby causing wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the complainant. The learned Magistrate erred in treating the matter as a civil dispute and failed to consider that criminal prosecution can co- exist with civil liability where deception is alleged at the inception. The impugned order was passed without proper appreciation of the materials and without affording
