Criminal Original Petition filed to quash an FIR alleging cheating and criminal intimidation arising from a business dispute over unpaid credit sales. The High Court held that a breach of contract does not amount to cheating without dishonest intention from the inception and quashed the proceedings.
The FIR registered as Crime No. 522 of 2019 was quashed.
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.8383 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.10.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.8383 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.4113 of 2020
T.Murugesan
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Tharamani Police Station, Chennai – 600 113. (Crime No. 522 of 2019)
2.M. Dilip Vincent. .. Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No. 522 of 2019 on the file of respondent police and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekananthan
For R1 : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : Mr.G.Prabakaran
For M/s. R & P.Partner's
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.8383 of 2020
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No. 522 of 2019 on the file of first respondent.
2/8
Crl.O.P.No.8383 of 2020
accused/petitioner threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the present complaint has been lodged by the second respondent.
3/8
Crl.O.P.No.8383 of 2020
payable by the petitioner to the second respondent.
4/8
Crl.O.P.No.8383 of 2020
attract the offence, threat and intention to cause an alarm are main ingredients. The third ingredient is that the intention must be to cause any person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, subsequent to the main ingredients. Whereas in the case on hand, even according to the case of the
5/8
Crl.O.P.No.8383 of 2020
prosecution, the alleged threats issued by the petitioner were only empty threats and they had no effect on the complainant.
Vs. State through the Inspector of Police , which reads as follows:-
“7.It is seen from the statements recorded under
Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/
defacto complainant that it does not contain any obscene
words, which were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations are very simple in nature. It is also seen from the statement of one Uthami, that the petitioner
threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences when he dashed the defacto complainant. The entire allegations are trivial in nature. Further, to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C., there was a threatening only by words. As pointed by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the threat
6/8
Crl.O.P.No.8383 of 2020
should be a real one and not just a mere word when the
petition uttering does not exactly mean what he says and
also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually. Therefore, the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the petitioner herein and also the entire criminal proceedings is clear an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the entire proceedings.”
12.10.2023
Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : yes/no nsl/veda
7/8
Crl.O.P.No.8383 of 2020
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
nsl/veda
To
Crl.O.P.No.8383 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.4113 of 2020
12.10.2023
8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a business dispute over credit sales and subsequent failure to repay amounts to the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Whether empty threats made by the petitioner amounted to an offence under Section 506 IPC.
Whether the FIR constitutes an abuse of process of the court and is liable to be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abdul Agis Vs. State through the Inspector of PoliceExplained¶47
_Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014_ in the case of _Abdul Agis_ Vs. State through the Inspector of Police
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T.Murugesan
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Tharamani Police Station
M. Dilip Vincent
G.K.Ilantiraiyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
