The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that if the intention from the very beginning is not there, the case of cheating cannot be made out.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant filed the complaint alleging that the opposite party no. 2 is the transporter carrying business and placed with an order by one M/s Jobby Infrastructure Pvt Ltd to employ 7 nos. of Hywa (Tata Tipper). Furthermore, opposite party no. 2 deployed 7 nos. of Hywa in said work and agreed to pay Rs.1,45,000/- per Hywa. The petitioner, a proprietor with criminal intent, convinced O.P.No. 2 that M/s Jobby Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. had left the mentioned job five days before without providing any information. On getting assurance, O.P.No.2 has employed 7 nos. of Hywa in the work and raised the bill of Rs.64,12,747/-. Out of Rs.64,12,747/- the petitioner paid Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- through RTGS and the total due amount is Rs.48,12,747/-. Thereafter, the Petitioner issued three cheques for Rs.15,00,000/-, Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.18,00,000/- knowing the fact regarding the insufficiency of his fund in his bank account.
The present petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that under section 482Cr.P.C., the Court may intervene at any time if the charge is brought but the case is not proven. It was furthermore contended that a certain amount was paid and there exists no intention from the beginning to cheat. Also, the case made out is of civil nature.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Satish Mehra v. State (N.C.T of Delhi) and Another, Binod Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another, and Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal and Another.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the payment of Rs. 7 lac and Rs. 9 lac to the O.P. No. 2 through R.T.G.S. indicates that there was no intention of cheating from the start. It is firmly established that there cannot be a case of cheating if there was no intention from the very beginning.
It was furthermore observed that the complainant would make sure that the allegations in the complaint and F.IR disclosed all of the ingredients required to make up the alleged crime. As a result, it is not just enough for the Court to look into whether the averments made in the complaint/F.I.R. to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.
It was noted that the court exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not limit itself to the status of the case; instead, it is authorized to consider all relevant circumstances that led to the case's initiation, as well as the evidence gathered during the investigation.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the criminal proceedings pending in the court learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case title: Kiran Kumar Vs The State of Jharkhand and Another
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 360 of 2016
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
