Madras High Court
Pattu Arun vs The State Tamil Nadu Rep By on 22 February, 2021
Crl. OP No.8673 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P No.8673 of 2020
Pattu Arun ... Petitioners/Accused 1
vs.
1. The State Tamil Nadu rep by:
The Sub -Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
EDF-1, Team IV,
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
(Crime No.601/2013) ... 1st Respondent/complainant
2. Soundarapandian ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.1125 of 2015 on the
file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shankar
For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate, for R1
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.8673 of 2020
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1125
of 2015 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,
Chennai.
2. Heard Mr.S.Shankar. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.C.Raghavan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first
respondent.
3. This Court while considering the quash petition filed by A3 in Crl
OP No.4557 of 2017, dealt with the entire issue in detail. Therefore, it will
be more beneficial to extract the order hereunder:
“2. Based on the complaint given by the 2nd
respondent, the respondent police registered an
FIR in Crime No.601 of 2013 for an offence under
Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. On the completion of
the investigation, a final report was filed before the
Court below and the same has been taken on file in
C.C.No.1125 of 2015 as against three accused
persons for an offence under Sections 406, 420 r/w
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.8673 of 2020
34 and 120(b) of IPC. The petitioner has been
added as A3.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the son
of the petitioner namely, A1 had received a sum of
Rs.28,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and
this amount was paid on the assurance given by
the petitioner and her husband, that it will be
returned back. This amount was paid for the
purpose of producing a movie by A1. Subsequently
another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid to A1.
The cheque that was issued by A1 was also
dishonored with an endorsement ?”stop
payment”?. Therefore, according to the defacto
complainant, he has been cheated and all the
accused persons conspired together and
misappropriated the amount.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that even if the final report is taken as it
is, along with the materials relied upon by the
prosecution, no offence of breach of trust or
cheating has been made out against the petitioner.
The learned counsel submitted that the simple case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.8673 of 2020
of the prosecution is that money was paid by the
defacto complainant to A1 on the assurance given
by his parents and the amount has not been repaid.
These allegations, according to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, does not make out an
offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the respondent police have
investigated the case and filed a final report and
the statement recorded from the defacto
complainant and LW2 to LW5, clearly makes out a
prima facie case of breach of trust and cheating.
The learned counsel submitted that this Court
should not interfere with the proceedings at this
stage and the accused persons must be made to
face the trial before the Court below.
6.This Court carefully considered the
submissions made on either side and the materials
available on record.
7.The private notice that was sent to the 2nd
respondent has been returned as ?information
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.8673 of 2020
delivered?. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
J.K.International vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
And and others reported in (2001) 3 SCC 462 has
categorically held that it is not necessary in all
cases to hear the defacto complainant, while
dealing with quash proceedings at the stage of
final report and he can be effectively represented
by the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
the State. The 2nd respondent has not entered
appearance in this case and therefore this Court
proceeds to decide the case on merits.
8.The case of the prosecution has been
extracted supra. It is a clear case of money being
lent by the defacto complainant to A1 and the same
not being repaid back to him. According to the
complainant, the money was given to A1 only on
the assurance given by his parents. The petitioner
before this Court is the mother of A1.
9.It is now a well settled proposition of law
that in order to constitute an offence of cheating,
there must be an intention to cheat even at the
inception. A culpable intention at the very
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.8673 of 2020
inception, cannot be presumed on the failure to
keep up a promise subsequently. Useful reference
can be made to the judgment in T.Chandrasekhar
vs. State, rep by Inspector of Police, Central Crime
Branch, Land Grabbing, Thousand Light P.S.,
Chennai-600006 and Another reported in (2011) 3
MLJ (Crl) 644.
10.This is a clear case which is squarely
covered by the above said judgment. A1 had failed
to keep up his promise to repay back the amount
subsequently. That by itself will not give raise to a
presumption that there was a culpable intention at
the very inception.
11.In the considered view of this Court, the
defacto complainant has given a criminal colour to
a pure and simple civil dispute and therefore the
proceedings itself is an abuse of process of Court.
4. This Court has categorically held that the failure on the part of A1
to keep up his promise to repay back the amount subsequently, will not
attract the offence of cheating. This Court also held that the Defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.8673 of 2020
Complainant has given a Criminal Colour to a pure and simple civil dispute.
The findings of this Court will also enure to the benefit of the petitioner
herein.
5. In the result the proceedings in C.C.No.1125 of 2015 on the file of
the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is hereby
quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
22.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
jv
To
1. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet,
Chennai.
2. The Sub -Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
EDF-1, Team IV,
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. OP No.8673 of 2020
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
jv
Crl.O.P No.8673 of 2020
22.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
