G.Mohanlal Parmar vs N.Balakrishnan
2021 Latest Caselaw 22881 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 22881 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 November, 2021

Madras High Court

G.Mohanlal Parmar vs N.Balakrishnan on 23 November, 2021

                                                                                    Crl. O.P. No. 20859 of 2017


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    Dated 23.11.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                              Crl. O.P. No. 20859 of 2017
                                                         and
                                         Crl.M.P.Nos. 12411 and 12412 of 2017


                     1.G.Mohanlal Parmar
                     2.G.Gopal Parmar                                                 . . . Petitioners

                                                           Versus

                     N.Balakrishnan                                                 . . . Respondent


                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
                     for the records in C.C.No.1056 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
                     Alandur, Kancheepuram District for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and
                     506(i) and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners.




                                        For Petitioners         : Mr.J.Suresh

                                        For Respondent          : Mr.R.Vivekananthan




                     Page No:1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                          Crl. O.P. No. 20859 of 2017


                                                              ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings

in C.C.No.1056 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur,

Kancheepuram District, for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i)

IPC.

2.It is the main contention of the de facto complainant that the accused

had made a false representation and made to believe the complainant to supply

the goods. Only on their promise and representation, the complainant had

loaded the goods and the petitioners thereafter defrauded the complainant and

parted with the goods. Therefore, the complaint has been filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the

complaint is not maintainable, as it is purely a commercial transaction,

therefore, there cannot be any prosecution. It is his further submission that

there is no evidence to show that orders have been placed by the petitioners for

such goods. Without any such orders being placed, the question of supply of

goods does not arise at all. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the entire

private complaint is an abuse of process of law and his further contention is that

Page No:2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 20859 of 2017

there is no allegation in the complaint to attract the offences as against the

petitioners, and prayed to quash the complaint.

4.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

5.This Court is of the view that, whether orders have been placed or not

is a matter of evidence. Therefore, this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry

while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. What is required to

be done is to find out whether there is any prima facie allegation to attract the

offence. However, whether those allegations are true or not, is a matter of

evidence, which can be gone into at the stage of trial. The very allegation in

the complaint made against the petitioners is that, based on the false

representation and promise made by the petitioners, the respondent was made to

believe and he supplied the goods.

6.When such being the position, this Court is of the view that the same

certainly falls within the ambit of Section 415 IPC in view of the illustrations

under Section 415 IPC.

Page No:3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 20859 of 2017

Illustrations (f) and (g) of Section 415 IPC reads as follows :

“(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may led to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats.

(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.”

7.In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the complaint

cannot be quashed at the threshold. The evidentiary value of the same has to be

gone into only at the stage of trial. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to

quash the proceedings at this stage.

8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Page No:4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. O.P. No. 20859 of 2017

Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

9.At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks

indulgence of this Court to dispense with the personal appearance of the

petitioners. Accordingly, the personal appearance of the petitioners/accused

before the trial Court is dispensed with, except for receipt of copies, answering