2005 (2) TMI 870 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the Order passed by High Court - Criminal revision u/s 401 CrPC - guilty of cheating - fraudulent or dishonest intention - agreement to sell or received any advance payment i n respect of the house premises - offences attracting penal provisions of IPC under Sections 196, 209, 386, 403, 406 and 420 - HELD THAT - In the instant case, as could be seen from the records, that the police has given a clean chit to accused Nos. 2-4. In our opinion, the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the alleged offence against the accused No.1, the appellant herein and that the complaint has been made to harass the accused No.1 to come to terms by resorting to criminal process. As already noticed, the complaint was filed on 17.05.1999 after a lapse of 11 years and, therefore, the very private complaint filed by the respondent No.1 is not at all maintainable at this distance of time. It is the specific case of accused No.1 that he has not executed any agreement to sell or received any advance payment. In our view, the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of Section 415 of Cr.PC and, therefore, we have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence alleged. It is also not clearly proved that to hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. The order of the Magistrate and of the High Court requiring the accused No.1 appellant herein to face trial would not be in the interest of justice. On the other hand, in our considered opinion, this is a fit case for setting aside the order of the Magistrate as confirmed by the High Court of issuance of process and the proceedings itself. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and of the Magistrate. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on the question of inordinate latches on the part of the complainant himself. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any good reasons to maintain the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court confirming the orders of the Magistrate. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed and the judgment and order dated 17.02.2004 in Criminal Revision Petition of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore is set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against final judgment and order of High Court in Criminal Revision Petition, Allegations of offences under IPC, Cognizance of alleged offence under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., Dismissal of criminal revision by High Court, Setting aside orders of Magistrate and High Court, Inordinate delay in filing complaint, Lack of ingredients of Section 415 of Cr.P.C., Fraudulent or dishonest intention for cheating, Interest of justice.

Analysis:

The case involved an appeal against the final judgment of the High Court in a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant (accused No.1). The complainant alleged that the appellant executed an agreement to sell a property but failed to fulfill the terms, leading to criminal offences under various sections of the IPC. The complaint was filed after a significant delay of 11 years from the alleged agreement date. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant only for an offence under Section 420 IPC.

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by the appellant, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the complaint was based on an agreement dated 25.12.1988, which was denied by the appellant. The delay in filing the complaint and the lack of criminal intent were crucial factors. The Court noted that the allegations appeared to be of a civil nature rather than criminal. The Magistrate's failure to consider the police report and the clean chit given to other accused showed a lack of judicial application.

The Supreme Court found that the complaint did not establish the essential elements of Section 415 of Cr.P.C., necessary for cheating allegations. The Court emphasized that proving fraudulent or dishonest intent is crucial for cheating accusations. The Court concluded that the complaint, filed after an extensive delay, lacked merit and was an attempt to harass the appellant. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Magistrate and the High Court, dismissing the complaint due to the inordinate delay and absence of legal grounds. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining justice and fairness in legal proceedings.