Ramesh Chander and others vs Kailash Chander

S.C. Mital, J.—Facts giving rise to this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that Kailash Chand (respondent) filed the present complaint under sections 47, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against Ramesh Chander, Gian Chand and Harish Chander (petitioners). It was alleged therein that Ramesh Chander and others owed Rs. 10,000/- to Kailash Chand. On several occasions Ramesh Chander and his co-accused put off Kailash Chand by giving false assurance Finally when Kailash Chand expressed his intention to file civil suit for the recovery of the said amount a cheque for Rs. 2,000/- was tent to him in December, 1980. The cheque was dishonoured by the Bank of the accused persons. When the matter was brought to their notice they began hurling abuses at the complainant and threatened to kill him. After recording the preliminary evidence the trial Magistrate summoned the accused persons for commission of offence u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code, only.

Learned Counsel for the accused persons has contended one of the essential ingredients of cheating, as defined by section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, is to induce a person to deliver any property by practising deception or fraud. In the case in hand this ingredient is completely lacking in asmuch as the complaint starts by referring to the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest, which the accused persons owed to Kailash Chand complainant. In other words there is no allegation at all that the complainant was deceived to part with the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- by the accused person. In Mahadeo Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, , their Lordships have laid down that non-payment of an amount per se cannot amount to cheating.

Learned Counsel for Kailash Chand then placed reliance on the cheque of Rs. 2,000/- which was dishonoured. Here again the complaint has no merit. In Seth Anand Kumarson v. Kasturi Lal (1973) 75 P.L.R. 254. I had the occasion to deal with a similar case in which six post dated cheques given by the accused were dishonoured by the Bankers. Such a conduct of an accused may arose moral indignation, but are never the lesses civil wrongs, which can be righted by Civil Courts and are not a crime, which can be punished by a criminal Court Not every immoral act is criminal A post-dated cheque is a mere promise to pay on a future date and a broken promise is not a criminal offence, though it may amount in certain business relations to discreditable behaviour. Adverting to the facts of this case, it follows that the issuance of the cheque of Rs. 2,000/- by the accused persons per se cannot amount to cheat the complainant.

For the foregoing reasons, I allow this petition and quash the impugned order sumoning the accused persons and also the entire proceedings.