Crl. Misc. No. M-20029 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-20029 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: January 19, 2010 Puneet Jindal and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. APS Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.2. GURDEV SINGH, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is for quashing of FIR No. 178 dated 21.6.2008 registered at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga, under Sections 420/120-B IPC. The FIR was registered on the written application of Harbans Singh-respondent No.2-complainant addressed to the SSP, Moga, regarding refund of his amount from the petitioners, who are commission agents. He narrated therein that the petitioners are also running the clothe merchant shop and he had been visiting the same. They took sum of Rs. 8.40 lacs from him and gave an allurement of paying higher interest on that amount. He had earned that amount by selling five acres of land. They neither returned that amount nor paid any interest thereon and thus interest of 64 Crl. Misc. No. M-20029 of 2008 2 months had accumulated. They failed to pay the principal amount and the interest thereon in spite of oral requests made by him and rather they threatened him to teach a lesson if he asked for his money. According to the petitioners, earlier also a similar application was moved by the complainant-respondent No.2 on 27.1.2006 before SSP, Moga, alleging therein that he has not been paid interest by them from 31.8.2002 to 27.1.2006, apart from other allegations. The matter was inquired into by the Economics Wing Cell, Moga, after the complaint was marked to its in-charge by the SSP. All of them were summoned during that inquiry and their statements were also recorded. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 21.2.2006 and stated therein that transaction was for the recovery of the principal amount and the interest and that respondent No.2 was entitled to recover the same by resorting to civil proceedings. Now after two and a half year, he came up with the second application with the similar allegations on the basis of which the present FIR has been recorded. In the previous application, he had demanded interest for 41 months, whereas in the present application, he demanded interest for 64 months. The disputes falls under the category of civil dispute and the FIR has been lodged just to put pressure upon them. No offence under section 420 IPC is made out from the contents of the FIR. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and the State counsel as well. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the dispute, as mentioned in the FIR, is of ciivil nature and the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioners and at most it can be Crl. Misc. No. M-20029 of 2008 3 said that it was a money transaction and the remedy of respondent No.2- complainant is by way of filing a suit for recovery. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the counsel for respondent No.2 that on the basis of the petitioners' dishonest inducement, the complainant paid sum of Rs. 8.40 lacs to them. It cannot be said that the dispute is simply of civil nature, a criminal offence is also made out therefrom. At the time of arguments, it was not disputed that previously also a similar application was moved by respondent No.2 in which he contended that interest of 41 months is due to him from the petitioners. Now he has come up with the second application on the basis of which the impugned FIR has been registered that he has not been given interest for 64 months. Even the subject matter of the application is regarding refund of money from the commission agent. His main grouse is about the non return of the amount in dispute and non payment of interest thereon. The word 'cheating' is defined in Section 415 of the IPC. As per that definition, a person is said to be 'cheat' who deceives any person and fraudulently or dishonestly induces that person to deliver any property to any person. The sine-qua-non of the offence of cheating is that there must be dishonest or fraudulent intention at the very beginning. It is not reflected from the contents of the FIR that the petitioners had such an intention at the time the amount in dispute was deposited by respondent No.2 with them. Had there been such dishonest intention, the respondent No.2 must have mentioned that fact in the first application itself in which he had claimed interest for 41 months. The dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. No offence under Section 420 IPC is made out from Crl. Misc. No. M-20029 of 2008 4 the contents of the FIR. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR and the subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof are ordered to be quashed. January 19, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE