IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.08.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.21704 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 Bhag chand jain .. Petitioner Versus The state represented by The Inspector of police, Crime, C-2, Elephant Gate Police Station Chennai 600 079. .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No.3511 of 2007 pending on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George down, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s. Star Associates For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniappa Raj Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records in C.C.No.3511 of 2007, pending on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George town, Chennai and quash the same. 2. The Prosecution case is that one Mahendrakumar/defacto complaint had lodged a complaint with the respondent police on 12.01.2002 stating that he had sold stainless steel utensils to the petitioner/accused between the period from 15.07.2000 to 24.07.2000 for a sum of Rs.33,945/- . The said sale amount was not paid by the petitioner/accused and so he cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No 52 of 2002 on an alleged offence under section 420 of I.P.C. The said case is now pending on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George town, Chennai as C.C.No.3511 of 2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The petitioner has stated in his petition that the business transaction had taken place between the petitioner and defacto complainant in respect of purchase and sale of steel utensils, is purely of a civil nature and would not amount to cheating. Further, the petitioner has stated that it is a settled law that for establishing the offence of cheating, the respondent is required to show that the petitioner/accused has committed fraud or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation, failure to keep promise. In the present circumstances, the offence of cheating was not established by the respondent. So, the complaint contains no reason to disclose the offence of cheating. As such the complaint before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate is not maintainable either in law or in facts. Further the petitioner has alleged that the respondent approached the police with the sole intention to blackmail the petitioner to exhort unreasonable amount from the petitioner. The case registered against the petitioner/accused is without application of mind and ignoring the principles. The petitioner further submits that in the absence of intention to cheat, section 420 of I.P.C cannot be applied. 4. Considering the contentions of the petitioner and complainant as well as arguments of both the learned counsels, the courts is of the view that business transaction took place between the petitioner and respondent during a particular period. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent is only on sale consideration of steel utensils. So, the case will not be attracted for offences under penal code, as the matter is purely civil in nature. 5. Hence the court is warranted to interfere in the proceedings in C.C.No.3511 of 2007 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai, which has got to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. The Criminal Original petition No.21704 of 2007 is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar skn/mra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Inspector of police, Crime, C-2, Elephant Gate Police Station Chennai 600 079. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104. 3. The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 4. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai - 8. 1 cc To M/s.Star Associates, Advocate, SR.36227. Crl.O.P.No.21704 of 2007 and M.P.No. 1 of 2007 KM(CO) RVL 20.08.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/