GOPALA KRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 267 of 1989 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Thiruthani. As per the allegations in the complaint, the petitioner approached complainant Manakchand Jam during 1987-88 and requested him to subscribe a chit run by him. Believing his words, the complainant joined the chit of Rs. 40,000 group. He was regularly paying the subscriptions. He was a successful bidder in the auction held six months prior to the complaint. However, the petitioner did not pay the chit amount in spite of repeated requests. Though he promised to hand over the money with in two or three days, he did not keep the promise. Besides, when the complainant warned the petitioner that he would take action against him, the latter gave out a promise that he would secure employment to his unemployed son. The complainant issued a lawyerTs notice on 30.5.1988 demanding the money. Though the petitioner received the notice, he sent neither any reply nor repaid the money. On the basis of this complaint a charge sheet under Section 420, I.P.C., was filed, by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruthani against the petitioner on 21. 5. 1989.

(2.) The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him for the reason that Manakchand Jam preferred a private complaint against him before J.F.C.M., Thiruthani for an offence punishable under Section 420, I.P.C. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Sub-Inspector of police (Crime), Thiruthani for investigation and report under Section 156 (3), Crl.P.C. The Sub- Inspector received the complaint and registered it as Crime No. 1276 of 1988 of his station under Section 420, I.P.C. A perusal of the charge sheet filed against him as well as the records under Section 161, Crl.P.C. would disclose that even if they are taken on their face value, no offence is made out against him.

(3.) Thiru P.M. Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute is primarily of civil nature which has been made a subject of criminal proceedings. Even assuming without admitting that the petitioner is liable to pay the money, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are absent in the complaint. Section 420, I.P.C. deals with the punishment for cheating. And as per Section 415, I.P.C., whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, which he would not do if he were not so deceived is said to cheat'. It is evident from the perusal of the complaint herein that the necessary fraudlent or dishonest inducement is conspicuously absent. What has happened in this case is only a breach of promise on the part of the petitioner.