TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for quashing the first information report lodged against him has been dismissed. 3. The short facts are that Madhusudan Ram Gupta, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad bearing complaint case No. 88/1998 for prosecution of M/s. Gopalika Finance Corporation Limited, Sitarampur within the district of Burdwan and its two Directors, namely, the Appellant and his brother Vijay Shanker (since deceased) Under Sections 420/120B of Indian Penal Code alleging therein, inter alia that M/s. Gopalika Finance Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') was engaged in the business of financing the purchase of vehicles under hire purchase scheme and the complainant who was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the accused persons before the West Bengal Consumers Grievances Redressal Forum in which the complainant was also made a party and by order dated 23rd July, 1996 the entire claim was allowed and insurance company was directed to pay ₹ 4,20,000/- with interest accrued thereon and pursuant thereto insurance company issued a cheque for ₹ 4,20,000/- in favour of the Corporation which was encashed by the Appellant but out of the said amount a sum of ₹ 2,60,000/- was never paid to the complainant in spite of assurances given to him by the Appellant which necessitated filing of the complaint for prosecution of the accused persons. 4. Upon filing of the complaint, the Magistrate did not entertain the same but directed the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 2,60,000/- to the complainant out of that but the same has never been paid. Apart from that there is no other allegation in the petition of complaint. It was pointed out on behalf of the complainant that the accused fraudulently persuaded the complainant to agree so that the accused persons may take steps for moving the Consumer Forum in relation to claim of ₹ 4,20,000/-. It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
