bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRI. CRI. CRI. APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 179 OF 1999 PETITION NO. 179 OF 1999 PETITION NO. 179 OF 1999 Kirti M. Shah, Partner of M/s.Sanghrajka Industries, 78 C & D, Govt. Industrial Estate, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400 067. ... Petitioner v/s 1. M/s.Bhola Textile 2. Shri Bholanath Sheth 3. Ms.Rashmi Ravi Sheth 4. State of Maharashtra ... Respondents None present for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Marwadi for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 26TH MARCH, 2008. 26TH MARCH, 2008. 26TH MARCH, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT: 1. The petition was called out on 25.3.2008 when neither the petitioner nor his representative were present in Court. The matter was, therefore, kept for hearing today. When it reached for final hearing, neither the petitioner nor his advocate were present in Court and, therefore, the matter was heard with the assistance of the learned advocate for the respondents. 2. This petition challenges the order passed by the 2 Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in Case No.53/5/94 and Sessions Court’s order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 1997. 3. The Metropolitan Magistrate has discharged the accused, the respondent herein, pursuant to the application made by the accused. The Sessions Court in revision has confirmed the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. 4. The facts involved in the present case are as under:- . In March, 1992 the accused purchased a plot from the the petitioner’s firm for an amount of Rs.1,63,747/-. 21 Hundis were drawn by the accused for payment of the aforesaid amount in respect of the 21 bills for the amount. These hundis were dishonoured on the due date on presentation. The accused then issued 21 cheques drawn in favour of the petitioner’s firm M/s.Sanghrajka Industries on 7.9.1993. The cheques cover each of the bills issued and the total amount due was Rs.1,63,747/-. It appears that these cheques were dishonoured and the petitioner’s bankers returned the cheques on 8.9.1993 with the endorsement "Account closed". A demand was made by the petitioner through his advocate for payment 3 of the unpaid amount by notice dated 17.9.1993. A complaint was thereafter filed in the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court alleging that the accused have committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Process was issued to the accused on 3.2.1994. On 6.3.1997 the accused preferred an application under Section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for discharge. The main grounds urged in the application for discharge were, (i) that the transaction between the petitioner and the accused was of a civil nature; (ii) that the cheques were subsequently issued for goods which were already sold to the accused by the complainant; and (iii) mere dishonour of the cheques would not constitute an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The discharge application was opposed by the petitioner. The Metropolitan Magistrate, by his impugned order dated 23.8.1997 allowed the application and discharged the accused. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No.376 of 1997 before the Sessions Court, Mumbai, under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. This revision application was heard and decided on 27.11.1998 by the Sessions Court confirming the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. 4 6. Being aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 7. The main contentions raised in the petition are: (i) Whether by giving hundis and later on cheques, which were dishonoured in payment of the bills, the accused/respondents have committed an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code or any other offence; (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to lead evidence under Section 245(1) of Cr.P.C., 1973; (iii) Whether the charge against the accused/respondents is groundless entitling them to benefit of Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C.; (iv) Whether the judgment of the H.P. High Court, reported in CRIME (3) 1994 page 164 is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand; and (v) Whether the impugned order calls for any interference from this Hon’ble Court. 8. One of the ingredients constituting offence under Section 420 is that the accused should have cheated a person thereby dishonestly inducing him to deliver any property to another person. To establish the offence of cheating it must be proved that (i) the representation made by the accused to the complainant was false; (ii) that the accused knew that the representation was false 5 at the very time when he made it; (iii) that the accused made the false representation with the dishonest intention of deceiving the person to whom he made and; (iv) that the accused thereby induced the person to deliver the property or to do or to omit to do something which he would otherwise not have done or omitted. Both the Courts below have found that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cheat the complainant and, therefore, the offence under Section 420 was not established. The Metropolitan Magistrate has found that the complaint did not disclose any statement to the effect that the accused had falsely induced the petitioner to deliver the goods to the accused. In these circumstances, it has been observed and, in my opinion, rightly that it was a business transaction in which the accused had not made payment for goods sold and delivered to him by the petitioner. The Magistrate has rightly observed that merely because cheques were dishonoured the provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted unless the intention was disclosed at the time of making the promise i.e. at the time of issuing the hundis or cheques. It cannot be said that merely because both the hundis, which were initially issued, and the cheques were dishonoured, that the accused had a dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction. 6 9. In the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & ors. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & ors. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & ors. v/s v/s v/s State of Bihar and another, reported in (2000) 4 SCC State of Bihar and another, reported in (2000) 4 SCC State of Bihar and another, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168, 168, 168, the Supreme Court, after quoting Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, has observed thus - "14. On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest. 15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which 7 may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed." 10. In the present case also the transaction would amount to a breach of contract. The complaint does not contain any statement that the accused had dishonestly or fraudulently intended to cheat the petitioner since the inception of the transaction. Therefore, there was no material which constituted an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Magistrate. 11. Similarly, in a recent judgment in the case of 8 Inder Inder Inder Mohan Goswami & anr. v/s State of Uttaranchal & Mohan Goswami & anr. v/s State of Uttaranchal & Mohan Goswami & anr. v/s State of Uttaranchal & ors. ors. ors. reported in 2007 All.M.R.(Cri) 3302 (S.C.), reported in 2007 All.M.R.(Cri) 3302 (S.C.), reported in 2007 All.M.R.(Cri) 3302 (S.C.), the Supreme Court has held that a mere failure by the accused to subsequently keep a promise could not indicate that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise. In para 40, the Supreme Court has observed thus - "40. On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is manifest that in the definition there are two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property to any person. The second class of acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or inducing must be intentional but need not be fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere 9 failure to subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the beginning." 12. Thus, it cannot be said that either the Magistrate or the Sessions Court had exercised their powers erroneously or had exceeded the jurisdiction vested in them. 13. There can be no doubt that the provisions of Section 245(2) of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Trial Court at any stage of the trial. The accused can be discharged if the Magistrate records reasons indicating that the charge against him is groundless. 14. In my opinion, therefore, the Magistrate and the Sessions Court have considered the provisions of law in their proper perspective while discharging the accused. There is no infirmity in their orders requiring interference of this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 15. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 10 (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.)