KALYANI MODERN RICE MILL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the Proceedings in C.C. No. 187 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Kovur, Nellore District.

(2.) Mere perusal of the complaint which was filed under S. 200, Cr.P.C., would reveal that there was regular contract of sale of paddy inter se the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and that there was a running account and from time to time, the amounts were being paid by the petitioner. The accusation that on a day on the account sheet, the signatures of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were obtained by misrepresentation and actually as on that date more amount of Rs. 1,70,000.00 was outstanding, even after payment of Rs. 4,35,389-35 ps. in three instalments and such an amount, even if it is assumed that the same was outstanding and is in breach of Contract of Sale and which is covered by Sale of Goods Act, will not come within the ambit of the offence of cheating under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code For making out an offence of cheating punishable under S. 420, IPC what is material is that on the day when the transaction was entered into, the accused was having a dishonest intention to make wrongful gain by inducing the complainant to part with the property by misrepresentation. It cannot be said that any transaction like this which involved a day-to-day business and a running account, such a dishonest intention can be presumed merely because on account sheet, the petitioner-accused has obtained the signature of the complainant. Even assuming that the accounts depicted are not correct and there is a mistake in the same and that the accused still owed amounts in spite of the fact that the signature was obtained on the accounts sheet, there is no element of cheating and at best it gives rise to a civil action in a common law Court, should the allegation of mistake of accounts is sustainable. It is manifest from the contents of the complaint that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 intend to short circuit the procedure by initiation of these proceedings to get back the money fast. But the law does not permit such an accusation, where it is a clear case of civil action, for which the common law remedy has to be invoked by filing a Civil Suit for realisation of the amount. In that sense, this Criminal prosecution is an abuse of process of law and the same is set aside.

(3.) In the result, the prosecution against the petitioner launched in C.C. No. 187 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovur, Nellore District is quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly.