This Court quashed the charge sheet in a cheating case, holding that the allegations disclosed only a civil dispute regarding a property transaction and breach of contract, as the parties had already litigated the matter in a pending civil suit.
The impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.133 of 2018 was quashed and 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.O.P.No.32806 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P. No. 32806 of 2019 and Crl.M.P. No. 18079 & 18080 of 2019
Gnaneshwaran
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State by, The Inspector of Police, B11 – Saibaba Colony Police Station, Coimbatore District.
2.Rajeshwari. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records charge sheet in C.C.No.133 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.7, Coimbatore in Crime No.603 of 2011 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, B11 – Saibaba Colony Police Station, Coimbatore District and quash the charge sheet pending against the petitioner.
1/7
Crl.O.P.No.32806 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Raghu Raj For Respondent 1 : Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent 2 : No Appearance.
O R D E R
The petition is to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.133 of 2018 for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC.
approached the petitioner for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/-; that the petitioner represented to the defacto complainant that if she sold the property to him, he would mortgage the property with Repco Bank and would grant a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and that he would not demand any interest for the said sum; that the petitioner did not keep up his promise and allowed the Repco Bank to initiate action under the SARFAESI Act for non payment of dues. Hence, the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 420 of IPC.
2/7
Crl.O.P.No.32806 of 2019
suit pending against the petitioner, the defacto complainant and the Bank Officials, which was filed by the children of the defacto complainant and an ex parte order was passed in the said suit on 30.09.2016. The learned counsel therefore submitted that a civil transaction is sought to be given a criminal colour and a case of cheating has been projected by the 2nd respondent.
3/7
Crl.O.P.No.32806 of 2019
entered appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
sale deed was executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner. The investigation reveals that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was
paid to the defacto complainant by way of three cheques. The statement given by the Branch manager of Repco Home Finance Limited, confirms the said fact, which reads as follows:
“nfhit fpis mYtyf nkyhsu; K:ykhf nkw;fz;l tPL 10/01/2008k; njjpad;W vd;/v!;/"hd!;tuDf;F gjpt[ bra;J bfhLf;fg;gl;L U:/25.00.000-? (U:gha; ,Ugije;J yl;rk; kl ; Lk;) 324544. 324545 kw;Wk; 324546 Mfpa v';fs; bfhz;l fU:u; it!;ah t';fp lhf;lu; e";rg;gh nuhL fpisapd; fhnrhiyahf jpUkjp/uhn$!;tupf;F tH';fg;gl;lJ/”
4/7
Crl.O.P.No.32806 of 2019
money to Repco Bank and sell it back to the defacto complainant. This allegation is contrary to the terms of the sale deed. As regards the question as to whether the 2nd respondent received a valid sale consideration, the statement of the Branch Manager as extracted above shows that the 2nd respondent received a sale consideration. Even assuming that the petitioner had not repaid the alleged loan taken from the Repco Bank and had not executed the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent after discharging the loan, it would only amount to a breach of promise. As stated earlier the allegation relates to an alleged private arrangement made between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent which is contrary to the terms of the sale deed. The said transaction cannot be a subject matter of prosecution under Section 420 of IPC as it discloses only a civil dispute between the parties. The parties have to approach only the Civil Court for setting aside the sale deed.
5/7
Crl.O.P.No.32806 of 2019
order, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned charge sheet.
24.04.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No kan
To
The Inspector of Police, B11 – Saibaba Colony Police Station, Coimbatore District.
6/7
Crl.O.P.No.32806 of 2019
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
kan
Crl.O.P.No. 32806 of 2019
24.04.2023
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the charge sheet disclose an offence under Section 420 of the IPC or merely a civil dispute.
Whether the charge sheet should be quashed given the existence of a civil suit and centralised sale deed terms.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gnaneshwaran
State by Inspector of Police, B11 – Saibaba Colony Police Station, Coimbatore District
Rajeshwari
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
