A dispute arising from a construction agreement where work was partially completed and no fraudulent intention existed at the inception is civil in nature; such disputes cannot be criminalized as cheating or intimidation to justify criminal prosecution.

PRAYER:

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act , to call for the final report in C.C.No.145 of 2024, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District, and quash as against the petitioners as the same is illegal and devoid of merits.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by A1 and A2 in C.C.No.145 of 2024, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District, seeking to quash the private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, wherein it was prayed for prosecuting the petitioners herein under Sections 420, 341, 448, 468 and 506(ii) of IPC.

A perusal of the private complaint reveals that the second accused is the friend of the defacto complainant and he had introduced the first accused who is a construction Contractor for the purpose of construction of the house for the defacto complainant. The first accused and the defacto complainant have entered into the construction agreement on 28.04.2021, wherein a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as advance to the first accused.

As per allegations in the complaint, endorsements were made on the back side of the agreement for every payment made to the accused person. It is alleged that the accused person had received a huge amount from the defacto complainant and he had not come forward to complete the construction work. Further, they started threatening the defacto complainant.

It is further alleged in the complaint that on 04.02.2022, a sum of Rs.40,000/- and on 09.02.2022 another a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the accused persons. Even thereafter, there was no progress in the construction. They have forged some entries in the construction agreement as if only a sum of Rs.20,21,000/- was received by the accused persons. Therefore, a complaint was lodged on 15.04.2024. Though the accused persons had agreed to appear before the police and submit the documents, they did not appear. But they started threatening the defacto complainant. Thereafter, another complaint was lodged on 30.05.2022, before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sathankulam. Though he was summoned on several occasions, no further progress was made in the complaint. Thereafter, the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint before the Meignanapuram Police Station, on 06.08.2022. Though he had appeared on the said date, a forged agreement was placed by the accused persons on 06.08.2022 and later he did not appear. On 10.11.2022, at about 11.30 a.m., the accused persons have trespassed into the property and demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the basis of second agreement. They had also threatened the defacto complainant. Hence, the private complaint.

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is a purely contractual dispute based upon the agreement entered into between the parties on 28.04.2024. There was no fraudulent intention or dishonest intention between the parties at the time entering into the contract. Therefore, according to him, breach of contract cannot be considered to be a criminal offence.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that mere alleged threatening of the complainant will not make out a case under Section 506(ii) of IPC. He further contended that the learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure as contemplated under chapter XV of Cr.P.C. and therefore, C.C.No.145 of 2024, is liable to be quashed.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the complaint was filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. without invoking the provision of Sections 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the complaint ought not to have been entertained. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the private complaint.

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioners herein had forged a second sale agreement based upon which they have demanded huge sum of money and a copy of the said alleged forg