9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iendly relationship in between the complainant and the petitioner since a long time back and because of the same, when the petitioner approached the complainant in the first week of December, 2009 with a request to the complainant to give a loan of Rs. 8 lakhs to meet his urgent personal need, the loan was advanced to the petitioner on the understanding that the petitioner will repay the loan amount on or before 12.3.2010. The learned senior counsel submits that there is no whisper in the complaint petition that there was a dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner at the time of taking the loan and that the complainant was deceived by any representation made by the petitioner at the time of giving of the loan amount to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submits that the dispute is purely a civil dispute and the same cannot be converted to a criminal offence. 3. It is also submitted by him that the mere fact that the cheque issued by the petitioner at the time of taking loan for an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs was not honoured when presented due to insufficiency of fund, does not satisfy, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ingredients of Section 420 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation.- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. 7. It follows that an offence of cheating cannot be made out unless the following ingredients are satisfied: (i) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission; (ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or to consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit. 8. It will also be appropriate to reproduce Section 420 IPC for ready reference in order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties. The section reads thus: 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or before the time the complainant paid the money to them and that at the time the representation was made, the respondents knew the same to be false and accordingly, dismissed the appeal by upholding the order of the High Court. 11. The facts in Joseph Salvaraja (supra), in a nutshell, are that complainant was an Administrative Officer in "Amaaru Family Education Trust" at Ahmedabad and he had close relationship with one Dharmendra P. Rami alias Lalabhai, who was running business of Siti Cable in Bapi Nagar area at Ahmedabad. He had occasion to watch "GOD TV", a religious channel, at Hyderabad and was deeply influenced by that channel. He approached Mr. Lalabhai to have that channel in the bouquet of channels offered by him and also contacted the company to allow broadcasting of "GOD TV" in certain areas of Ahmedabad through Siti Cables. Broadcasting of "GOD TV" commenced in certain zones of Ahmedabad. It was stated in the complaint that three cable operators including Mr. Lalabhai had agreed to broadcast "GOD TV" after the Company had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to Mr. Lalabhai. Apparently, the amount was not paid to Mr. Lalabhai and the cable operators, who had started ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and the complainant had shared a friendly relationship for a long time. The petitioner was in need of Rs. 8 lakhs and he requested the complainant to give him a loan for the said amount. Because of the friendship and bona fide need, the complainant advanced the loan to the petitioner on the understanding that loan will be repaid on or before 12.3.2010 and in token of the assurance and promise, the petitioner also issued one cheque for Rs. 8 lakhs. The complainant had deposited the cheque after 12.3.2010 and the same came to be dishonoured for insufficiency of fund. The complainant again met the petitioner with a request to refund back the said loan. Though the understanding, when the loan was advanced, was that the loan was required to be repaid on or before 10.3.2010, complainant agreed to accept Rs. 50,000/- only per month on instalment basis till the entire loan money was liquidated and to that effect an agreement dated 28.4.2010 was also executed. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also paid by the petitioner on the date of execution of the said agreement. The averments made in the complaint gives a clear picture that the complainant was aware of the financial predicament of the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
