Madras High Court
Saranya vs State Represented By on 3 January, 2024
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
Crl.O.P No.16978 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P No.16978 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.10910 & 17169 of 2023
Saranya
W/o.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.State represented by
Inspector of Police,
DCB, Tiruppur.
Crime No.4 of 2022
2.Arumugam
S/o.Sivasubramanian ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pursuant to the case
in Crime No.4 of 2022 on the file of first respondent police and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudhakar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor [R1]
Mr.T.K.S.Bharathy Anandraj [R2]
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P No.16978 of 2023
ORDER
This quash petition has been filed to quash the First Information
Report pending investigation on the file of first respondent in Crime No.4
of 2022.
2. Heard Mr.K.Sudhakar, learned counsel for petitioner and
Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for
first respondent and Mr.T.K.S.Bharathy Anandraj, learned counsel
appearing for second respondent.
3. The second respondent gave a complaint before the first
respondent to the effect that he had paid a sum of Rs.1,09,01,722/- to the
petitioner for the period from 03.06.2019 to 31.10.2020. Out of this
amount, the petitioner had only returned part of the amount and a sum of
Rs.49,00,000/- is due and payable by the petitioner. Since the repeated
demands made by the second respondent did not yield any result, a
complaint came to be given before the first respondent. The first
respondent, on receipt of the complaint, registered a First Information
Report in Crime No.4 of 2022 for offence u/s.420 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even if the
allegations made in the complaint are taken as it is, no offence of cheating
has been made out.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for second respondent submitted
that the entire amount was transferred to the petitioner through bank
transactions and more than one crore was paid to the petitioner and out of
the same, the petitioner had repaid a sum of Rs.59,79,784/- and the
balance amount of nearly Rs.49,00,000/- is due and payable. Learned
counsel further submitted that the petitioner had intentionally stopped
paying the amount and the cheque that was given by the petitioner was
also dishonoured and the petitioner was also hastily selling the
immovable properties with a view to deprive the second respondent from
getting back the money. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the
first respondent must be directed to continue further with the
investigation and to file a final report within the time frame fixed by this
Court.
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
either side and the materials available on record.
7. In order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to
cheat must be available from the inception. Culpable intention at the very
inception cannot be presumed on the failure to keep up a promise
subsequently. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner had only
repaid a part of the amount and the balance is yet to be repaid by the
petitioner. This act on the part of the petitioner, at the best, can only
constitute a breach of contract and it will not constitute an offence of
cheating. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in
T.Chandrasekhar v. The State represented by Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch, Land Grabbing Cell and another [(2011) 3
MLJ (Crl.) 644]. Reference can also be made to the judgment of this
Court in R.Jayaraman and others v. K.Ganesan and others [(2019) 1
MLJ (Crl.) 460].
8. In the light of the above judgment and after taking into
consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in Abhishek v. State of
Madhya Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083], this Court is of the
considered view that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner will result in abuse of process of law since no offence has been
made out against the petitioner.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
First Information Report in Crime No.4 of 2022 on the file of first
respondent is hereby quashed. It goes without saying that the quashing of
the First Information Report will not come in the way of the petitioner to
work out her remedy before the competent civil Court to recover the
money from the petitioner. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
03.01.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral citation : Yes/No
gm
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
DCB, Tiruppur.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. ANAND VENKATESH., J
gm
03.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
