1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1136/2010 KASHINATH LAXMANRAO CHOUDHARI VS. SUNIL JAYANTRAO CHAVAN AND ANOTHER. MR. V.M. KAGNE, ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT. MR. K.F. SHINGARE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MR. T.S. LODHE, A.P.P. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2/STATE. CORAM ; A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 25th November, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard. 2 The applicant is original complainant in R.C.C. No. 1181/2002 which he filed against the respondent alleging commission of offence of cheating. The learned judge of the lower Court recorded acquittal in his judgment. The applicant’s case in short can be stated as under. 3 The applicant agreed to purchase commercial vehicle a taxi from the respondent in October, 2001. At that time, the taxes of R.T.O. and permit charges were due. The insurance policy was also not renewed. No sooner the applicant agreed to purchase this vehicle, he went to the R.T.O. and the Insurance company and paid the dues, for renewal of insurance and the taxi permit. The applicant even took the vehicle in his charge after he paid the amount of consideration. Thus the applicant was able to use the vehicle for commercial purpose lawfully. But subsequently the applicant learnt that the vehicle was hypothecated to a financer whose dues were not paid by the respondent. Despite clearing the entire consideration, the respondent did not clear the dues of the financer. According to the applicant, because of this, he was 2 unable to use the vehicle for commercial purpose and because of this, the respondent had cheated him. By no stretch of imagination assuming everything stated above is truthful, offence of cheating is not made out. Once the applicant had received in his charge the vehicle which was apparently free from other encumbrances like insurance charges, road tax and permit charges, the applicant could not have assumed that he was unable to use the vehicle for commercial purpose though it was not formally transferred in his name. Assuming that due to non clearance of the dues of the financer, he did not issue the required no objection certificate for transfer of the vehicle, it would still not amount to cheating because at the time of inception of the contract between the applicant and the respondent, the intention to cheat by avoiding clearance of the dues of the financer can not be assumed. It was thus a civil dispute involving breach of contract. The learned judge of the lower court committed no error in acquitting the respondent. The application stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/