This order quashed a private complaint alleging cheating (Section 420 IPC) for a disputed loan between long-time friends, finding the case was merely a breach of promise and an abuse of process of law.
The private complaint was quashed; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl OP No.25396 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Criminal Original Petition No.25396 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.13580 & 13582 of 2019
1. Nazeera Afzal Rahman 2. Afzal Rahman ... Petitioners/Accused Versus Ms.Preetha Prasad ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.2926 of 2019 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Vigneswar Elango for M/s.P.Elango For Respondent : Mr.S.Anil Sandeep
1/6
Crl OP No.25396 of 2019
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the private complaint for the alleged offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2 . It is alleged in the complaint that during April 2014, the accused with a dishonest intention borrowed money from the complainant stating that they were going through some financial difficulties; that the respondent believing the petitioners had lent a sum of Rs.15,10,000/between the period from April to December 2015; that the respondent instituted a suit for recovery of the loan amount with interest against both the petitioners in OS No.5166 of 2016 and the said suit was decreed; that the petitioners by misusing the relationship between them and the respondent had played fraud on the petitioners to lend money to the tune of Rs.15,10,000/- and thus committed an offence under Section 420 of IPC.
3 . The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned complaint was filed on 08.08.2019 and the alleged loan was given to the petitioners between April and December 2015. The
2/6
Crl OP No.25396 of 2019
impugned complaint after the suit was filed for recovery of money is nothing but an abuse of process of law. There is nothing in the impugned complaint to show that the deception was practiced by the petitioners at the very inception of the contract. Admittedly, the petitioners and the respondent were good friends and known to each other for several years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the money was given as loan on the basis of any alleged deception. The learned counsel further submitted that the Suit in OS No.5166 of 2016 was also decreed subsequently.
4 . The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the conduct of the parties would show that the petitioners had deceived the respondent even at the inception. They had no intention to repay the loan amount. The conduct of the petitioners in filing a written statement and contesting the suit and making false averments would show that they have no intention to repay the money. The learned counsel further submitted that merely because the suit was filed for recovery of money and it cannot be said that the impugned complaint under Section 420 is not sustainable.
5 . This Court on perusal of the impugned complaint finds that the
3/6
Crl OP No.25396 of 2019
petitioners and the respondent were known to each other for over 30 years. There is nothing in the impugned complaint to show that any false representation was made by the petitioners for obtaining loan from the respondent. Admittedly, the loan was obtained to meet the educational expenses of the children and also for household expenses. The allegations at best only disclose a case of breach of promise. There is nothing in the impugned complaint to suggest that the petitioner practiced deception at the very inception. Further it is seen that the respondent had already obtained a decree in OS No.5166 of 2016 on16.10.2020 against the petitioners.
6 . In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
impugned complaint is an abuse of process of law and it is liable to be quashed in respect of second petitioner and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, this Criminal Original Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 27.03.2023. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
jv
18.04.2023
4/6
Crl OP No.25396 of 2019
Index: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes / No
To
The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai
5/6
Crl OP No.25396 of 2019
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
jv
Criminal Original Petition No.25396 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.13580 & 13582 of 2019
18.04.2023
1/2
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the private complaint disclose a substantive case of cheating or merely a breach of promise.
Whether the private complaint constitutes an abuse of the process of the court liable to be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nazeera Afzal Rahman
Afzal Rahman
Preetha Prasad
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
