Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1248 - MADRAS HIGH COURTDishonor of Cheque - partial discharge of debt made or not - offences under sections 420 and 406 of IPC - HELD THAT:- The documents produced herein can be looked into, only for the limited purpose in support of the petitioners' case that the petitioners paid nearly ₹ 72 lakhs under the mortgage discharge receipt and sale deeds in favour of the second respondent defacto complainant and another ₹ 28 lakhs by way of deposits in the bank. Though the defacto complainant has not produced any document before this court in support of his theory that borrowal of ₹ 38,00,000/- by A1 along with A2 to A4 and execution of consent and confirmation letters by either A1 or A2 to A4 etc, the documents produced herein would reveal that there was money transaction between the second respondent and the first petitioner and the first petitioner has made cash payment and executed sale deed in respect of his property towards partial discharge of the same. It is nobody's case that the defacto complainant was induced to part with money by any false representation made by the petitioners. The very conduct on the part of the first petitioner in repaying the amount and executing sale deed in respect of his property towards partial discharge of the amount, as per the allegations raised in the complaint, would go to show that there is no criminal intention for committing any act of cheating from the inception. The petitioners have also admittedly issued cheque for ₹ 25 lakhs on 16.10.2012 towards partial discharge of their liability. The allegation raised herein that the defacto complainant did not present the cheque for encashment as requested by the accused till the expiry of the cheque period, without being obtained fresh cheque leaf, appears to be, in the light of the earlier conduct of the parties, invented for the purpose of this case and is lacking in bonafide. Considering the nature of the transactions between the parties and subsequent conduct of the parties, this Court is of the firm view that the allegations raised in the FIR would disclose that the dispute between the parties is more of civil in nature and there is no fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners to attract the offences under sections 420 and 406 IPC - this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out against the petitioners herein to attract the offence under section 506(ii) IPC. Such case put forth on the side of the complainant involving married daughters and unmarried daughter whose marriage was fixed to be held in December 2013, also appears to be improbable in nature. Petition allowed.
|