Madras High Court
C.V.Thambidurai vs A.Natarajan on 18 August, 2023
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18 .08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Judgment Reserved On Judgment Pronounced On
04.01.2023 18.08.2023
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
C.V.Thambidurai ... Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
1.A.Natarajan
2.A.Gopalraj
3.V.Saraswathi ... Respondents/A1 to A3
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in C.C.No.630 of 2007, and set aside the judgment of
acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore,
dated 28.10.2013.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Arunkumar
for Mr.S.Gopinath
For Respondents : Mr.A.Ashwin Kumar
Legal Aid Counsel
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is arising out of acquittal of the
respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 3 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.VII, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.630 of 2007, dated 28.10.2013.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondents are
referred to as 'complainant' and 'accused', respectively.
3. The brief facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution, are as
follows:
(i) Accused Nos.1 to 3 and one N.Pachiammal and
S.Palaniammal/Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the owners of the land comprised
in S.F.No.834/1, to an extent of 14.90 Acres, situated at Chettipalayam
Village. All the accused agreed to sell the property to the complainant for a
sale consideration of Rs.2,23,500/-. On 06.07.1992 all the accused executed
an agreement for sale after receiving advance amount of Rs.15,000/-. Ex.P.1
is the Agreement for Sale. Thereafter, the complainant had paid balance
sale consideration on various dates. Ex.P.7 series are the Receipts. After
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
receiving the entire amount, on 09.03.1994, all the accused issued Ex.P.2
Receipt and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant with
respect to the above said property. Ex.P.3 is the Power of Attorney.
Thereafter, the complainant spent huge sum and formed a layout in the
property, divided into plots and sold 129 sites to various persons and 54
sites were remaining for sale.
(ii) In the meanwhile, all the accused cancelled the Power of
Attorney, through a registered cancellation deed, dated 16.03.2007. Ex.P.6
is the Cancellation Deed. Thereafter, the accused sent Ex.P.4 Notice to the
complainant on 19.03.2007, for which, the complainant sent Ex.P.5 Reply
Notice. Exs.P.8 to P.11 are the Balance Sheet of Jay Jay Associates, owned
by the complainant, Income Tax Returns and Balance Sheet. All the
accused after receiving entire sale consideration with an intention to cheat
the complainant, cancelled the Power of Attorney.
(iii) During the pendency of trial, the said N.Pachiammal and
S.Palaniammal/Accused Nos.4 and 5 died and therefore, charge against
them stood abated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
3. Before the trial Court, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2
were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked, no material object was
produced. On completion of examination of the witnesses on the side of the
prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.,
as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses and they denied them as false. On behalf of the
defence, no witness was examined, but Exs.D.1 to D.8 were marked as
defence documents.
4. Considering the evidence available on record, the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, by judgment dated 28.10.2013, found the
accused not guilty for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and acquitted
them, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Challenging the said judgment of acquittal, the
complainant has preferred this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the
complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the accused on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
06.07.1992 in respect of a property owned by the accused in Chettipalayam
Village, to an extent of 14.90 Acres. The sale consideration was fixed as
Rs.2,23,500/- i.e., Rs.15,000/- per Acre and on the day of entering into sale
agreement, an advance of Rs.15,000/- was paid to the accused by the
complainant. The entire sale consideration was paid in parts on various
dates between 08.10.1992 and 27.02.1994. On receipt of entire sale
consideration, the accused executed a registered Power of Attorney in the
name of the complainant on 09.03.1994 to deal with the property.
Thereafter, the complainant made plots on the said land and sold 129 plots
by 2007, by executing sale deeds as a Power Agent. All of a sudden, lured
by escalating prices on land, the accused made demands for further amount
from the complainant, even though there was no due from the complainant.
Aggrieved over the inability to procure further sums, the accused with an
ulterior motive cancelled the Power of Attorney on 16.03.2007 after 13
years from its execution and issued a notice dated 19.03.2007. The
complainant replied to the legal notice through his counsel on 02.04.2007
and the same was not considered, the complainant approached the local
Police for registration of a case against the accused on 23.04.2007. As the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
same was refused, a complaint came to be preferred by the complainant
against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII,
Coimbatore, on 27.04.2007, for suitable action.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the
learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant
and a witness, dismissed the complaint on 29.06.2007 holding that in spite
of having paid the entire sale consideration in 1994, the complainant had
not obtained the sale deed in his favour and that the Power of Attorney can
be cancelled by the Principals and the said cancellation cannot amount to an
offence. Aggrieved over the same, the complainant preferred
Crl.R.C.No.1520 of 2007 before this Court. This Court set aside the order
of the learned Magistrate and proceeded to hold that prima facie criminal
intention was seen on the part of the accused. Pursuant to the orders of this
Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore, took the
complaint on file in C.C.No.630 of 2007, vide order dated 07.11.2007.
Thereafter, the trial commenced and on the side of the complainant, two
witnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked. While so, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
accused preferred an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. to discharge
them from the case. The Trial Court after perusal of documents and
evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there were sufficient
materials to frame a charge and proceed with the trial against the accused
and thus, dismissed the discharge application, vide order dated 13.10.2010.
Thereafter, on 06.06.2011, the revision preferred against the dismissal of
discharge application by the learned Magistrate came to be dismissed as
withdrawn by this Court. Thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cross-
examined by the accused and 11 documents were marked and eight
documents were marked on behalf of the accused as defense exhibits. In
order to delay the proceedings, on 29.01.2013, the accused filed an
application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to summon the Information Officer
in the District Registrar Office to produce documents regarding the stamp
papers bought by the complainant despite the enquiry having been closed
by the District Crime Branch. The said application was dismissed by the
learned Magistrate on 11.06.2013. Thereafter, on 28.10.2013, the impugned
judgment of acquittal was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII,
Coimbatore, wherein, the learned Magistrate rendered the acquittal on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
ground that for the offence of cheating, deception must be at the inception
of transaction, which was absent in the present case and thus, no offence
under Section 415 I.P.C. was made out.
7. The learned counsel further submitted that on 17.03.2010 one of
the accused by name, A.Natarajan preferred a complaint to the District
Crime Branch, Coimbatore, against the complainant alleging that the
complainant indulged in using fake stamp papers to create sale deeds.
Aggrieved over the fact that the complaint was pending without any
progress, the accused Natarajan preferred a petition before this Court, vide
Crl.O.P.No.15805 of 2010 seeking a direction to the Police authorities to
conduct enquiry. This Court, by order dated 15.07.2010, directed the DCB,
Coimbatore, to conduct enquiry. Again, on 10.02.2011, the accused
Natarajan preferred Crl.O.P.No.2582 of 2011 before this Court seeking to
direct the DCB, Coimbatore, to conduct enquiry. In the said Petition, this
Court directed the DCB, Coimbatore, to conduct appropriate enquiry and
register a case if cognizable offence was made out. Accordingly, the DCB
conducted enquiry and filed a report on 19.09.2011 stating that the stamp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
papers, which were alleged to be forged by the complainant, were genuine
and thus, no further investigation was required.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that
even though the facts constitute the requisite ingredients of cheating as
contemplated under the Penal Code, the learned Magistrate proceeded on
the lines that deception was absent at inception, thereby, misconstruing the
import of Section 415 I.P.C. Further, the fact that no sale deed was executed
by the accused in favour of the complainant was also relied upon by the
learned Magistrate to acquit the accused, which was not warranted in view
of the dishonest intention being seen, as the accused retained the sale
consideration even after cancellation of the Power of Attorney. Permitting
such form of cheating to continue, the same would give rise to multiple
scams and thus, the impugned judgment of the learned Magistrate requires
re-consideration by this Court.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that the Indian Contract Act,
1872, prescribes that an Agency coupled with interest cannot be revoked
unless there is an express contract to that effect and even if such revocation
is to be made, then, due notice must have been given to such agent. In this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
case, neither any intimation was given to the Agent/complainant nor any
offer was made by the Principals/accused to make good the loss, which
would be sustained by the complainant. Further, no attempt was made by
the accused to return back the sale consideration received by them to the
complainant.
10. The learned counsel further submitted that the principles
regarding Agency coupled with interest and its revocation are governed by
Sections 202, 203, 204 and 206 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section
202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, lays down that an agency coupled
with interest is irrevocable. Where the agent has himself an interest in the
property, which forms the subject matter of the agency, the agency cannot,
in the absence of any express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of
such interest. Thus, even on the death of the Principal, an Agency coupled
with interest cannot be revoked to the prejudice of the Agent. The nature of
Agency can be determined from the terms of contract entered into between
the parties. In the present case, the Power of Attorney executed in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
the complainant, permitting him to deal with the property and sell it to third
parties. The interest of the Agent in the property is derived from the
contemporaneous documents such as, sale agreement and execution of
consolidated receipt. The said contention is fortified by the observations of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Seth Loon Karan Sethiya vs. Ivan E.John
reported in AIR 1969 SC 73.
11. The learned counsel further submitted that unilateral cancellation
of Power of Attorney is not tenable in view of Section 202 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 and if a Principal wants to revoke the authority given by
him, such revocation must be prior to the exercise of the authority by the
Agent prescribed under Section 203 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which
reads as follows:-
''203. When principal may revoke agent's
authority.-
The principal may, save as is otherwise
provided by the last preceding section, revoke the
authority given to his agent at any time before the
authority has been exercised so as to bind the
principal.''
12. Further, an Agency which has been acted upon, can never be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
revoked, in reference to the acts already performed by the Agent. Section
204 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:-
''204. Revocation where authority has been
partly exercised.-
The principal cannot revoke the authority given
to his agent after the authority has been partly
exercised, so far as regards such acts and obligations
as arise from acts already done in the agency.''
13. The learned counsel further submitted that if the Principal fails to
revoke the authority prior to exercise of such authority by the agent, then,
even though subsequent cancellation is permissive, it cannot extend to the
acts already performed by the agent on the strength of the power bestowed
on him. Further, Section 206 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 stipulates that
there must be due notice to the Agent before such revocation takes place
and also any damage incurred to the Agent must be compensated. A perusal
of the aforesaid provisions would evince that an Agency coupled with
interest is irrevocable, unless suitable compensatory measures are
undertaken by the Principal. In the present case on hand, the learned
Magistrate proceeded on a misconceived notion that Principals can revoke
Power of Attorney whenever they choose to do so, thereby, failing to note
the fact that the Agency in the present case was one which was coupled with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
interest. Therefore, the impugned judgment is contra to the principles of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 and thus, the same deserves to be set aside.
14. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Magistrate
misconceived that execution of Power of Attorney was the inception of the
transaction, and failed to note that it was only the cancellation, which was
the starting point of the transaction. In the present case, the complainant
and the accused entered into an agreement for sale in 1992 and sale
consideration was fully paid in 1994. Subsequently, a Power of Attorney
was entered into in 1994, in lieu of sale deed and by virtue of the Power of
Attorney, the complainant had entered into several sale transactions with
third parties, who were interested in purchasing the layouts formed by the
complainant on the land. In 2006, the accused after learning about the sale
of 129 plots, approached the complainant demanding further sum on the
land, in view of escalation in prices. When the same was refused by the
complainant, the Power of Attorney was cancelled and thereby, cheated the
complainant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
15. The learned counsel further submitted that the subsequent demand
of money from the complainant is not mere breach of promise, but acting in
violation/contra to the terms of the contract, which ultimately led to the
cancellation of the very document itself. The demand of money is the
inception in the present case and the conduct of the parties has to be
adjudged from that point. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance
on the judgment in Kishore Kumar Ganguly vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
decided on 5th March 2011, wherein the Chattisgarh High Court had an
occasion to deal with a case with similar set of facts and concluded that the
subsequent conduct on the part of the vendors in not executing the sale deed
and thereafter, cancelling the Power of Attorney, evinces the intention to
cheat the purchaser. Relevant portion of the dictum is extracted hereunder:-
''7. In the present case, as per the complaint,
virtually, the applicant has sold the plot to the
complainant after receiving full amount of
consideration and handed over possession to the
complainant. The applicant was seller and nothing
was required to be performed on behalf of the
purchaser i.e. the complainant for execution of sale
deed. The applicant was under legal obligation to
obtain necessary permission, if required, and execute
sale deed in favour of the complainant, but he has not
discharged his legal obligation till 2002. Although the
applicant has executed power of attorney in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
brother-in-law of the complainant who was competent
to execute sale deed in favour of his sister-in-law on
behalf of the applicant, but the power of attorney
holder was not competent to obtain permission from
the competent authority. In the year 2002 when the
power of attorney holder tried to obtain permission for
the applicant from the competent authority, the
applicant has informed the competent authority that
he is cancelling the power of attorney executed in
favour of brother-in-law of the complainant and in
year 2007, the applicant has executed sale deed in
favour of third party i.e. Ashok Jadwani.
.....
13. ..... However, the applicant has not
discharged any of his legal obligations at any stage
and contrary to discharge of such legal obligations
virtually, he has restrained his power of attorney
holder from executing sale deed and thereafter, he
himself has executed sale deed in favour of third
person.
.....
16. All these subsequent conducts are prima
facie sufficient to indicate that intention of the
applicant was fraudulent and dishonest since its
inception and in connivance with the subsequent
purchaser, he has tried to deprive the complainant
and cause damage to the complainant from the
property and from its rightful enjoyment. These
circumstances clearly satisfy the commission of
cheating to the complainant in connivance with the
second purchaser, as defined in Section 415 of the
IPC punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.''
Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, the dishonest
intention of the accused is prevalent from the following factors:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
(a) Receipt of entire sale consideration not denied by the accused.
(b) No effort taken by the accused to return the sale consideration.
(c) Prior intimation not given before cancelling the Power of
Attorney.
(d) The accused made an endorsement to the full receipt of money
even after two years from the date of agreement. Endorsement on the
reverse of the sale agreement and the execution of the Power of Attorney
was on the same day, which are concurrent transactions. The endorsement
is to the effect that there was no further due from the complainant to the
accused.
(e) Demand of further money from the complainant and subsequent to
the same, the Power of Attorney was cancelled, which would reflect that the
accused were not desirous of fulfilling their obligations.
(f) Cancellation of Power of Attorney after 13 years was due to
escalation of prices in land, which shows the criminal intend of the accused.
The aforesaid facts would establish that the accused did have an intention to
cause wrongful loss to the complainant and the subsequent conduct of the
accused clearly confirms the intention of the accused to cheat and therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
the ingredients for the offence of cheating under Section 415 I.P.C.
punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out as against the accused.
Thus, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate needs to be
re-appreciated and set aside.
16. The learned counsel further submitted that the cancellation of
Power of Attorney was done after 13 years. However, the learned
Magistrate concluded that the accused did not have an intention to cheat the
complainant. This had weighed on the mind of the learned Magistrate
heavily to acquit the accused. Further, the accused threatened the
complainant and the third party purchasers, which resulted in preferring the
present complaint. A loss had been incurred to the complainant due to
cancellation of Power of Attorney. Further, the complainant produced the
relevant income tax records to prove the payments made to the accused. No
explanation from the accused as to why they were still retaining the sale
consideration after cancellation of Power of Attorney and no notice was
issued to the complainant while cancelling the Power of Attorney. The
aforesaid factors would further clinch the stand of the complainant that the
accused resorted to dubious methods of cheating. On perusal of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
judgment, it is discerned that the Magistrate had not appreciated the
evidence in its proper perspective and proceeded to acquit the accused on
the technical ground. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the
learned Magistrate is erroneous, against law and the evidence on record.
Hence, the evidence needs to be re-analyzed and the acquittal so passed be
set aside.
17. The learned counsel also submitted that complainant filed
O.S.No.69 of 2011 before the III Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore,
seeking permanent injunction in respect of the property in question, which
was decreed on 25.10.2021.
18. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondents submitted that
where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, the proceedings could be quashed. Therefore, one of
the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Penal Code is
existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of making initial promise or
existence thereof from the very beginning of formation of contract. Failure
to keep promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
beginning, cannot be presumed.
19. The learned counsel further submitted that on the strength of the
Power of Attorney executed by the accused, the complainant started to sell
the landed properties as several parts to various persons, but he has not
informed any particulars or details of those alleged sale deeds executed by
him. As per the terms and conditions of the Power of Attorney, the
complainant is duty bound to disclose the details of the sale deeds and also
liable to give true, genuine and proper accounts by way of rendition of
accounts, which is the one of the major conditions in the Power of Attorney
and thereby, violated the terms and conditions of the Power of Attorney.
20. The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant
entered into an agreement for sale with the accused on 06.07.1992
undertaking to pay the entire sale consideration i.e., Rs.2,23,500/- within a
period of nine months, which came to an end on 06.04.1993. On the
contrary, he paid substantial portion of the amount i.e., Rs.1,57,250/- after
the time limit and the last payment of Rs.51,250/- was made only on
09.03.1994 i.e., after 1 ½ years from the date of agreement and thereby,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
violated the terms and conditions of the said agreement.
21. The learned counsel further submitted that as per clause 11 of the
Power of Attorney dated 08.03.1994, for executing the Power of Attorney,
the accused did not receive any consideration from the complainant. He
further submitted no witness to the receipt of the aforesaid amount was
examined.
22. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegations levelled
against the accused do not reveal any dishonest and fraudulent intention to
cheat the complainant from the very inception. It is well settled that where
the allegations contained in the F.I.R., even if given face value and taken to
be correct, do not disclose the commission of criminal offence and it can be
only a civil dispute, hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
23. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the
following judgments:-
(a) Bhoom Rajam and another vs. State of A.P. and another
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
reported in 2002 SCC Online AP 1492 for the principle that, when the
dispute is civil in nature, no criminal offence can be culled out on the
strength of the averments found therein.
(b) In the case of Dalip Kaur and others vs. Jagnar Singh and
another reported in 2009 (14) SCC 696, the Hon'ble Apex Court had
defined, if the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute,
resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants therein by
non-refunding the amount of advance, the same would not constitute an
offence of cheating.
(c) In T.Chandrasekhar vs. State and another reported in 2011
SCC Online Mad 396 and R.Robert Denson vs. State, Rep. By Inspector
of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai and another reported in 2014
SCC Online Mad 7235, this Court had followed the same principle.
Thus, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the consistent
view of the Hon'ble Apex Court is that deception for cheating must be at the
time of inception and breach of contract would not amount to an offence of
cheating.
24. The learned counsel also submitted that the alleged conduct if any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
on the part of the respondents amounts to breach of contract and breach of
contract simpliciter does not constitute an offence as the act of cheating or
criminal breach of trust and is basically more of civil in nature and prayed
for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal.
25. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the
learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials on
record.
26. Considering the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the
materials, it is not in dispute that the complainant had approached the
respondents to purchase 14.90 Acres of land in S.F.No.834/1, situated at
Chettipalayam Village, Coimbatore and negotiated with them. Pursuant to
the same, the respondents herein and two others had agreed to sell 14.90
Acres of land to the complainant for consideration. Thereafter, on
06.07.1992 an agreement for sale was executed and payments were made
during the years from 1992 – 1994, which were acknowledged by receipts.
Thereafter, on 09.03.1994 a Power of Attorney was executed in favour of
the complainant. Using the said Power of Attorney, the complainant spent
huge sum and formed a layout in the property, divided into Plots and sold
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
129 Plots to various persons and 54 Plots were remaining for sale.
Thereafter, on 16.03.2007, the Power of Attorney was unilaterally cancelled
by a cancellation deed and after cancellation, notice was issued to the
complainant.
27. The case of the complainant is that, he had paid entire sale
consideration to the respondents and two others and thereafter only, the
Power of Attorney was executed. Using the Power of Attorney, he had
developed the property making his own investments and thereafter, due to
escalation of land value, the respondents became greedy, made undue
demands, which was resisted by the complainant. Hence, in order to create
encumbrance and obstacle for the sale of remaining 54 Plots, the
respondents cancelled the Power of Attorney, which caused undue loss to
him and hence, the respondents committed the offence of cheating.
28. The Trial Court considered the contention of the complainant in
detail and on the evidence and material produced, had come to a conclusion
that there was no intention by the respondents to defraud or cheat the
complainant at the time of executing the Power of Attorney. The entire case
rests on the Power of Attorney and cancellation of Power of Attorney,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
which was unilaterally done, utmost it might give a right for the
complainant to resist the same citing the provisions of Sections 203, 204
and 206 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, in a civil proceedings, certainly
not by a criminal case.
29. Further, it is seen that the complainant had filed a civil suit in
O.S.No.69 of 2011 against the respondents herein and the legal heirs of one
N.Petchiammal and S.Palaniammal, before the III Additional Sub Court,
Coimbatore, questioning the unilateral cancellation of Power of Attorney.
The learned III Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore, citing the provisions of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872, held that the complainant is entitled for
permanent injunction, restraining the respondents and others and their men
or agents jointly and severally from making any claim over the property or
encumbering or creating any document in respect of the said property. Thus,
the civil right of the complainant has been upheld and his interest over the
said property safeguarded. The Civil Court's finding is that unilateral
cancellation of Power of Attorney is not binding on the complainant, which
is subject of contract obligations, and the same cannot be automatically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
termed as offence of cheating committed. It is one thing to assess the facts
and circumstances of the case for a civil remedy and that the same analogy
cannot be construed to be a criminal act.
30. The Trial Court's finding is well reasoned one. In this case, from
the admitted facts, it is clear that at the time of inception, there was no
deception or any intention to cheat the complainant. The consistent view of
the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court as referred to above is that, for
an offence of cheating, the deception must be at the stage of inception. In
this case, there is no such deception.
31. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with
the well reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this Criminal Appeal
is dismissed.
32. Before parting with this case, this Court wishes to place on record
its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr.A.Ashwin Kumar, learned
Legal Aid Counsel for the respondents, who assisted this Court with an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
impressive preparation of the case along with case laws.
18.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
smn2/vv2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.VII,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2/vv2
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
Crl.A.No.315 of 2014
18.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
