2007 (10) TMI 683 - SC - Indian Laws

Commission of an offence u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Execution of the sale deed - False Or Misleading representation - Suit Properties are different from the subject matter of the Deed of Sale - Whether a case of cheating within the meaning of Section 415 of the IPC has been made out or not - civil suit has already been filed - Application for quashing the complaint filled u/s 482 of CrPC - HC dismissed the application - HELD THAT - While executing the sale deed the appellant herein did not make any false or misleading representation. There had also not been any dishonest act of inducement on his part to do or omit to do anything which he could not have done or omitted to have done if he were not so deceived. Admittedly the matter is pending before a competent civil court. A decision of a competent court of law is required to be taken in this behalf. Essentially the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. For the purpose of establishing the offence of cheating the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. In a case of this nature it is permissible in law to consider the stand taken by a party in a pending civil litigation. We do not however mean to lay down a law that the liability of a person cannot be both civil and criminal at the same time. But when a stand has been taken in a complaint petition which is contrary to or inconsistent with the stand taken by him in a civil suit it assumes significance. Had the fact as purported to have been represented before us that the appellant herein got the said two rooms demolished and concealed the said fact at the time of execution of the deed of sale the matter might have been different. As the deed of sale was executed on 30.9.2005 and the purported demolition took place on 29.9.2005 it was expected that the complainant/first respondent would come out with her real grievance in the written statement filed by her in the aforementioned suit. She for reasons best known to her did not choose to do so. Therefore we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for proceeding with the criminal case - Thus the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for quashing a complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
2. Allegations of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code based on a sale agreement for a house and subsequent demolition of two rooms.
3. Dispute regarding whether the demolished rooms were part of the property sold.
4. Examination of the elements of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Analysis of fraudulent or dishonest intention in the context of making false representations.
6. Consideration of civil and criminal liabilities in the same matter.
7. Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the legal process.
8. Comparison with previous judgments on the elements of cheating and fraudulent intention.
9. Decision to set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed an application seeking to quash a complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The case involved allegations of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code based on a sale agreement for a house and the subsequent demolition of two rooms. The dispute centered around whether the demolished rooms were part of the property sold, leading to a legal challenge.

2. The court delved into the elements of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the requirement of deception and fraudulent or dishonest inducement causing harm. The analysis focused on the lack of false representations or inducement by the accused during the sale deed execution. It was noted that the matter was already sub judice before a civil court, highlighting the civil nature of the dispute between the parties.

3. The judgment scrutinized the aspect of fraudulent or dishonest intention in making representations, emphasizing the need to establish such intent at the time of promise or representation. The court considered the contradictory stands taken by the complainant in the civil suit and the complaint petition, highlighting the significance of consistency in legal proceedings.

4. The court discussed the coexistence of civil and criminal liabilities in the same matter, clarifying that the liability of a person could be both civil and criminal simultaneously. However, it stressed the importance of aligning stands taken in different legal forums to ensure coherence and credibility in legal proceedings.

5. The judgment also addressed the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the legal process. Drawing from previous judgments, the court emphasized the cautious approach required in criminal proceedings to avoid misusing the legal system for ulterior motives.

6. Finally, the court compared the present case with previous judgments on cheating and fraudulent intention to establish a coherent legal framework. The decision ultimately set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal, concluding that no case of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code was substantiated based on the facts and circumstances of the case.