Case: Sayed Mohammed Masood Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through The Inspector In Charge &amp; Another

5. The F.I.R. which is sought to be quashed by the Court, makes certain allegations against the petitioner and it was stated in the complaint that the accused persons, in collusion and in connivance with each other, preplanned and established a company known as City Limousines (India) Pvt. Ltd. They promoted the scheme of Go/Vehicle on rental basis and earning by sitting at home, assuring the people for earning the moneys in easy way. The company issued public advertisement in a newspaper. They also issued pamphlets and attracted huge investments. The accused persons accepted crores of rupees and the amount so realized was misappropriated and thereby the investors were deceived. Thereafter, it is the case of the prosecution that the statement of the complainant was recorded in which he gave details with regard to the affairs of the company and he stated that he saw an advertisement in the local Marathi newspaper which read as Give the Motor Car on rental basis and earn the moneys sitting at home. In the said advertisement the name and address of the company was given as M/s. Limousine India Limited, 102, Mittal Tower, B Wing,10th Floor, Nariman point, Mumbai400 021. In the advertisement, it was also mentioned that the motor car would be purchased in the name of the investors and if the same was given on rental basis, good profit per month shall be given to the investors on their investments. On reading the said advertisement, he went to make detailed inquiry. He along with his friend went to the address given in the said advertisement of the company. There were many persons sitting in the office, who were also making inquiry. When he made inquiries, he was sent to a cabin where one Smt. Geeta Razaki was sitting. The said Geeta Razaki introduced herself as the Administrative Director of the said Company. The other person sitting there also introduced himself as Sayed Mohamed Masood Jamdar, as the Managing Director of the said Company.At that time the Complainant asked them about the reference in the newspaper. The said two persons then told him the details about the Company and also gave information with respect to the scheme. He was told that the car would be of ownership of the investors and the investors would be entitled to profit per month.The scheme was that the owner would purchase a car of Maruti Omni and the same would be given to the Company on rental basis. He was told that he would have to invest an amount of Rs.97,907/in the Company, the company shall purchase a Maruti Omni car in his name and the same shall be allowed to run on rental basis to other companies and the Complainant would get a sum of Rs.4,000/per month for a period of sixty months and after completion of the period of sixty months the said car would remain in the ownership of the Complainant as it would be returned to him. Then on 26th July, 2007, he prepared a cheque for the amount of Rs.97,907/and handed it over to the Company and thereafter an agreement was signed by the parties. The Company paid per month Rs.4,000/to the Complainant as agreed upon, but after completion of five years the Maruti Omni car was not handed over to the Complainant.

Reasoning:
9. Since there is no controversy on facts and no further facts need to be even investigated by the police because it is admitted case of both the parties that the monies were paid for a period of five years at the rate of Rs.4,000/per month but the vehicle was not returned. Whereas the case of the petitioner is that they could retain the vehicle and in terms of the agreement they could sell the vehicle to anybody and the complainant had the preference.Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in order to make an offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused must have the intention at the inception of the contract. However, there is nothing in the complaint or in the statement of the complainant to show that the accused had such an intention at the inception of the contract. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Raymond Ltd. (JKFT Division) v/s H. V. Doshi and Brothers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2006(1) CHN 578, wherein the Court held, In order to establish cheating as provided in Section 420 of IPC it must be established that the accused petitioner had the intention to induce, deceive and cheat the complainant right from very beginning. In the instant case, nothing such happened as it transpired from petition of complaint. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v/s CBI, New Delhi, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 257  , held, It is settled law, by a catena of decisions, that for establishing the offense of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. From his making failure to keep promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the beginning that is at the time when the promise was made cannot be presumed.Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of all these judgments and in view of the admitted fact with regard to the case, one thing is clear that there has been no intention to deceive at the inception of the contract and there can be genuine disputes between the parties with regard to the interpretation of various clauses of the agreement. He submits that paragraphs 8 and 15 of the agreement would need a construction so as not to render any of the clauses of the agreement redundant and that can be done by the civil court. He submits that in any case there is no cheating or fraud manifested by the conduct of the accused persons and as such the F.I.R. needs to be quashed.At the cost of repetition we may mention that the facts in the present case are not at dispute at all that the investment made by each of the consumers to the tune of Rs.97,907/and in return they received Rs.2,40,000/.The only question which remained was whether the investors were entitled to the car at the end of the period of five years or not. There has been no intention to defraud at the time of inception of execution of the agreement. There can be made several interpretations of the clauses in the agreement if the agreement is taken as a whole. It is a well accepted principle of interpretation that while interpreting clause of agreement, whole of the agreement has to be taken into consideration.Applying the principles laid down by the various judgments of the Supreme Court hereinabove referred, we do not think that in the facts and circumstances of the case an offense of cheating is made out.