The Court dismissed a petition to quash a private complaint, holding that allegations of false declarations and failure to supply goods after receiving advance payments attracted the ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC, distinguishing the matter from a simple civil dispute.
None. Petition to quash dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :02.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.OP.No.8293 of 2024 and
Crl.MP.Nos.6042 & 6044 of 2024
1.M/s.Kamalam Agro Products Rep by its Partner Mr. Dhanvanth K.G.
4. Sathya Rajagopal ... Petitioners
Vs.
M/s.Marico Ltd., No.1056, 1 st Floor, Sunshine Buildings, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore-641018 Rep by its Authorized Signatory Mr.Achuthan Kutty. K Buying Manager .... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to CC.No.325 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Palanivel For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
1/6
for Mr.M.Kandasamy O R D E R
Petition filed to quash the private complaint instituted against these
petitioners were arrayed as A6 to A9 in the compliant.
are the suppliers of the coconut without husk to one M/s. Srimadhi Agro Industries Pvt., Limited which is supposed to convert the coconut into copra and supply to the defacto complainant, will be sent to the defacto complainant Company which is the manufacturer of the coconut oil and other products. It is contended in the complaint that the first accused Company and the 6th accused Company are run by the same family members. They colluded together and make the complaint to believe that the coconut are ready for conversion and on the said promise, advance been received to the tune of Rs. 1,45,63,464/-. by the petitioners herein on the assurance given by the A1 to A4. However, there is no supply of copra as per the terms of the agreement.
complaint was first agitated before the police and the same was closed as
2/6
'mistake of fact' and therefore, the complaint has taken the private complaint Rule despite the fact that the dispute is civil in nature and no criminality involved in this case.
“8. It is submitted since the supply chain of the complainant was getting adversely affected, Marico's official physically visited the premises of the 1st Accused Company on 29th October, 2021 to verify the stocks. It was during this visit that Marico's official suspected an issue. Subsequently, on 31st October 2021, the 1st Accused company submitted a falsified monthly stock
3/6
declaration letter capturing the availability of stocks. Upon verification of documents and the records it was found that 4,79,890 kg of coconut without husk worth about INR 1,45,63,464/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Fivie Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Four only) was supplied by the 6th accused firm to the 1st Accused company for conversion into copra. Basis the representation and confirmation as regards receipt of coconuts as per the purchase order from the 1st Accused company, the complainant had released payments of INR 1,45,63,464/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Fivie Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Four only) to the 6th accused firm on various dates vide RTGS/NEFT.
9. It is submitted that while the complainant had released the payments to the 6th accused firm as stated above, the physical verification of stocks by Marico revealed that there were no stocks of coconut without husk present at the premises of the 1st Accused company. It was also evident that the Directors of 1st Accused company colluding with the partners of 6th Accused firm with malafide intention were furnishing false documentation and declaration for the stocks of coconut without husk lying in its premises. “
4/6
complaint cannot be discarded as purely civil dispute between the supplier and the purchaser. The manner in which money received promise to supply the goods and failure to supply the goods does not indicate that it is simple breach of terms of contract but something more which attracts ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. Hence, the petition to quash is dismissed. If the accused persons seek for exemption from personal appearance, appropriate application before the trial court to be filed and if such application is filed, the same may be considered sympathetically and their personal appearance may be dispensed on all hearings when their appearance is not required. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02.07.2024
Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non-Speaking order gv
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
5/6
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
gv
Crl.OP.No.8293 of 2024 Crl.MP.Nos.6042 & 6044 of 2024
02.07.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the dispute is a mere civil breach of contract or involves criminal elements of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s.Kamalam Agro Products Rep by its Partner Mr. Dhanvanth K.G.
Dhanvanth K.G.
Mayuri Udayakumar
Sathya Rajagopal
M/s.Marico Ltd.
G Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
