Kumar Anand Sagar vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in Complaint Case No. 207 of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla has dismissed the complaint petition under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

The allegation against the opposite party no.2 is that the opposite party no.2-the proposed accused person of the case took Rs.40,000/- from the petitioner-complainant to purchase a motorcycle after getting remaining loan financed by the financial institution but did not repay the said Rs.40,000/-to the complainant.

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,  Gumla considered that there is no allegation of any deception played by the opposite party no.2-the proposed accused person of the case, since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and the dispute between the parties  is  purely  a  civil  dispute  and  by  thus  considering  came  to the conclusion that the complaint has been filed as a pressure tactics upon the proposed accused person of the case and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla without application of his judicial mind has dismissed the complaint ignoring the fact that the complainant in his statement under solemn affirmation and the inquiry witnesses have supported the case of the complainant. Hence,  it  is  submitted  that  the prayer  as  made  in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner could not even produce a scrap of paper  to  show  that  he  has  lent  any  money  to  the  opposite  party

no.2-the proposed accused person of the case and at best the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla has rightly dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

Having  heard  the  submissions  made  at  the  Bar  and  after  going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme  Court  of  India  in  the  case  of  Satish  Chandra  Ratan  Lal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, paragraph no. 13 of which reads as under:-

“13. Now coming to the charge under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. In the context of contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan  Prasad  Verma  v.  State  of  Bihar,  (2000)  4  SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted  a  summary  civil  suit  seeking  recovery  of  the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence.  Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.” (Emphasis supplied)

that mere inability of the accused to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a  criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction between the parties.

Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the opposite party no.2-the proposed accused person  of  the  case  that  he  had  fraudulent  or  dishonest  intention right at the beginning of the transaction nor there is any document to show payment of any money by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2-the proposed accused person of the case.

Under such circumstances, this Court is  of the considered view that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla has not committed  any  illegality  in  dismissing  the  complaint  warranting interference  of  this Court  in  exercise of  its  power  under  Section 482 of Code of CriminalProcedure.

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.