S.K.Anand vs Prakash Chand Sethi

Pritpal Singh, J.

A criminal complaint under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, filed by the respondent Parkesh Chand Sethi against the petitioners Dr. S.K. Anand and Uma Puri is sought to be quashed in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the plea that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of any offence.

It is alleged in the complaint that the respondent processed the gray fabric of the petitioners on agreed rates. Various bills were issued to the petitioners towards processing charges, by the respondent, some of which were paid off. However, a debit balance of Rs. 1,54,655.49 remained in the month of November, 1983. Initially the petitioners refused to pay this amount but after much persuasion they issued two postdated cheques; one for Rs. 65,515/ dated November 3, 1983 and the second for Rs 42500/ dated November 22, 1983. On presentation the cheques were dishonoured by the Bank on the ground that the petitioners had stopped the payment. It is alleged that on account of the stopping of the payments of the cheques the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code.

The contention of the petitioners is that the dishonouring of the cheques merely amounts to breach of promise and not the commission of an offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. This contention is not without merit.

The offence of cheating punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, is committed when the accused by deceit dishonestly induces the complainant to do something. Thus, in the present case if the petitioners had induced the respondent to process their fabric against the cheques which were dishonoured, it could be validly said that the petitioners had dishonestly induced the respondent to process the fabric on the fraudulent representation that the cheques will be honoured. The allegations in the complaint on the contrary are that the respondent had already processed the fabric before the cheques were issued by the petitioners. In other words the cheques were issued for payment of the old debts. It is not alleged that the respondent had been induced to do something in lieu of the cheques. A distinction has to be drawn between a case where a post dated cheque is issued in order to discharge an exiting liability and a case where it is issued against doing something. In the former case the dishonouring of the cheque will amount only to breach of promise while in the latter case it may be prima facie evidence of intention of cheating.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the allegations contained in the impugned complaint do not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. There allegations only project a breach of premise to pay an existing debt. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned complaint, as also the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, are quashed.