TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved in this case that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence or to infer in the absence of any such averments. This Court finds that the dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami Versus State of Uttaranchal [ 2007 (10) TMI 550 - SUPREME COURT] , elaborately dealt on this aspect, questioned dual the proceedings and observed that the criminal prosecution are not to be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused when dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong and also observed that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. It is clear that a civil dispute has been given in a criminal colour. At the most, it can only be said that the inability of the petitioner to return the loan amount cannot give rise to criminal prosecution. The respondent by himself and his family members, instituted a civil proceedings for seeking recovery of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent would be made. During October 2014, when the 2nd respondent approached the petitioner in his office along with his friend V. Radha Narasimha Rao and sought return of ₹ 1.75 crores the amount due from the petitioner, he refused to return the money and threatened the 2nd respondent with his body guards. Hence, the 2nd respondent gave a complaint to the 1st respondent, against which, the present quash petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent gave a complaint on 21.02.2015 for the alleged transaction taken place during October 2007. The learned counsel further submitted that for the payment made by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner handed over partly filled blank Demand Promissory Notes, during the period of 2007-2008. The petitioner repaid sums of money, which was not duly credited. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner instead of invoking civil jurisdiction for recovery of alleged sum, on the other hand with the help of one Mohan, who is working as Section Officer in Prevention and Detection Section, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai, the 2nd respondent threatened the petitioner on 10.01.2015 along with the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oof in support of his claim and how the alleged loan amount of ₹ 75 lakhs had culminated into ₹ 1.75 crores. Mere calculation would show that the interest claimed by the 2nd respondent is an exorbitant interest, which is prohibited under law. The 1st respondent without verifying and ascertaining any facts and without collecting any materials, acted as a recovery agent for the 2nd respondent. The admitted case of the 2nd respondent is that he advanced loan during 2007-2008, but no reason given for delay in lodging the complaint in the year 2015. Sensing the period of limitation is elapsed, with the false allegations, the 2nd respondent lodged a criminal complaint as though the petitioner had misappropriated and cheated him. The admitted case of the 2nd respondent is that the money was advanced based on the eight Demand Promissory Notes executed during October 2007 to March 2008. The 2nd respondent instead of filing a recovery suit, based on the bill of exchange, had given a false complaint against the petitioner and used the 1st respondent Police as recovery/collection agent. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner was taken into police custody on 04.03.2015 ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar @ V.G. Anand Kumar filed a suit in O.S. No. 538 of 2016 during March 2015, based on one Demand Promissory Note dated 09.04.2008 for ₹ 5 lakhs before the XVII Additional City Civil Court, Madras. The 2nd respondent's wife Ms. V. Maruthi Sivaram filed a civil suit with deficits stamp before the City Civil Court, Madras in O.S. SR. No. 14748 of 2015, which was kept pending for a long time, finally on 29.06.2016, it was closed. The 2nd respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 1203 of 2016 before the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras based on the Demand Promissory Note dated 01.04.2009 for ₹ 10 lakhs. The suit in O.S. No. 1203 of 2016 came to be dismissed on 12.12.2017 after full-fledged trial. In the suit, the respondent as well as his friend Radha Narashima Rao were examined as PW1 and PW2. Against the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No. 1206 of 2016, the petitioner preferred Appeal Suit in A.S. No. 245 of 2019. The learned XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai by judgment dated 18.02.2020, dismissed the Appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1203 of 2016. It is pertinent to note that the civil proceedings filed by the 2nd r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the 2nd respondent's son is defended and the same is pending before the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit in O.S. SR. No. 14748 of 2018 filed by the 2nd respondent's wife was dismissed for default. The suit filed by the 2nd respondent in O.S. No. 1203 of 2016 got dismissed after full-fledged trial, against which, the 2nd respondent filed Appeal Suit in A.S. No. 245 of 2019, which was also dismissed. Thus, the petitioner has been defending the civil proceedings diligently in the respective Courts. 12. Thus, filing of civil proceedings by the 2nd respondent and his family members against the petitioner would go to show that it is a predominantly a civil dispute between the them and a civil dispute is given criminal colour. All the civil proceedings are based on the Demand Promissory Notes, which are all being adjudicated before the Civil Courts. Now, the criminal case is also based on the same Demand Promissory Notes. The petitioner, earlier to the above complaint of the 2nd respondent, on 10.01.2015 sent a notice to the 2nd respondent as well as to the police officials for acting in a high manner using men and muscle power, attempting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on the case of Paramjeet Batra Versus State of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 for the point that the civil transactions may also have a criminal texture, but it is to be seen whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. He placed reliance on the case of Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and others etc., Versus State of Gujarat and another etc., in Criminal Appeal Nos. 251-252 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 142-143 of 2019) for the preposition that when the issue is pending consideration in civil suit, the FIR ought not to be allowed to continue as it would be prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit. In the case of Sushil Sethi and another Versus The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2020 (Arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 590 of 2019) following the case in Inder Mohan Goswami Versus State of Uttaranchal reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 held that the criminal prosecution is not to be used as a instrumental or harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and prayed for dismissal of the quash petition. 19. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint on 21.02.2015 and a case in Crime No. 70 of 2015 was registered for offence under Sections 406, 420, 506(i) and 120(b) IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 27.02.2015 and taken police custody on 04.03.2015 to 06.03.2015. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai granted bail to the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 3972 of 2015 on 12.03.2015 and imposed condition that the petitioner to produce documents relating to his property situated in Hyderabad before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai within 10 days. Further, the case was referred to Mediation, since the issue involved is money transaction. During investigation, the petitioner approached this Court during April 2015 and obtained interim stay, thus the investigation, in this case, could not be continued. Only during investigation, the truthfulness and otherwise of the complaint as well, the claim of the petitioner could be verified. The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court had deprecated the quashing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of trust, without there being a clear case of entrustment. Further, the transaction had taken place in the year 2008 and the complaint was lodged in the year 2015. For constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the petitioner had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. In this case, no such promise or representation was made by the petitioner. The transaction between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is a contract, mere failure of agreement and contract would not lead to offence of cheating and misappropriation. The 2nd respondent to recover the amount and its dues, instituted civil proceedings, seeking recovery of loan amount, which is still pending for adjudication. It is observed in this case that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence or to infer in the absence of any such averments. 25. On the above facts, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami Versus State of Uttaranchal reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, elaborately dealt on this aspect, questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
