9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 409 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent that the applicants knew the fact that there is no sufficient amount in the bank account, but still with an intention to cheat the complainant, the cheque in question was issued, and further by making false promise of making the payment, they kept the complainant in dark - Whether the dispute would be predominantly of civil in nature or it also involves the ingredients of criminal intent? Held that - It is well established principle of law that where the dispute is predominantly of civil in nature, then the same cannot be given the colour of criminal case. This Court is of the considered opinion, that the complaint filed by the complainant, lacks the basic allegation of dishonest intention on the part of the applicants, right from the very inception of the agreement and secondly, even if the entire allegations are accepted, then it would give rise to a civil dispute and the same cannot be allowed to be converted into a criminal case and admittedly, the complainant has already filed a civil suit against the applicants before a Court of competent jurisdiction, which is pending. The criminal complaint filed by the complainant against the applicants is hereby quashed and the applicants are discharged. Application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of the order framing charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. 2. Determination of whether the dispute is of civil or criminal nature. 3. Examination of the complainant's allegations and the accused's intention. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashment of the Order Framing Charge under Section 420 of I.P.C.: The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 21-1-2016 by 19th A.S.J., Indore, which affirmed the order dated 24-8-2015 by J.M.F.C., Indore. The J.M.F.C. had framed a charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. against the applicants. The applicants contended that the allegations, even if accepted, would at best constitute a breach of promise and not an offense under Section 420 of I.P.C. They argued that the dispute was civil in nature, as evidenced by the pending civil suit filed by the complainant for recovery of the amount. 2. Determination of Whether the Dispute is of Civil or Criminal Nature: The Court examined whether the dispute was predominantly civil or involved criminal intent. It reiterated the principle that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases. The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including *Binod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.*, which emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes. The Court noted that the complainant had already filed a civil suit against the applicants, indicating the civil nature of the dispute. 3. Examination of the Complainant's Allegations and the Accused's Intention: The Court analyzed the complainant's allegations that the applicants had made false promises and issued a cheque knowing there were insufficient funds, causing the cheque to bounce. The complainant alleged that the applicants did this to prevent filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court emphasized that for an offense under Section 420 of I.P.C., it must be shown that the accused had a dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. Citing Supreme Court cases like *State of Kerala Vs. A.P. Pillai* and *Hridaya Rajan Pd. Verma Vs. State of Bihar*, the Court noted that mere failure to fulfill a promise does not constitute cheating unless there was fraudulent intent from the beginning. The Court concluded that the complainant failed to allege that the applicants had dishonest intentions from the inception of the agreement. The allegations indicated a civil dispute over unpaid fees rather than a criminal offense. The Court held that the lower courts had overlooked these aspects and set aside the orders framing the charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. Consequently, the criminal complaint was quashed, and the applicants were discharged. Conclusion: The application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the orders framing the charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. were set aside. The criminal complaint was quashed, and the applicants were discharged, reaffirming the principle that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases.
|
