Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Rashami w/o Satish Khandvikar and Satish s/o Bhangwantrao Khandvikar, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. 96 of 2016 registered at Sailu Police Station, District Parbhani, for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2, Ashok Narayan Dhage, alleging that the applicants had taken a loan of Rs. 1,50,000 from him on 15th March 2016 with a promise to repay within a month, but failed to repay and avoided him. The applicants contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature, as they had taken the loan and even made part payment of Rs. 25,000, and there was no dishonest intention at the time of taking the loan. The court examined the allegations and found that the essential ingredient of cheating, i.e., fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, was missing. The court noted that the loan was taken and part payment was made, indicating a civil liability rather than a criminal offence. The court held that continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. The court allowed the application and made the rule absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Cheating - Section 420 IPC - Quashing of FIR - The applicants sought quashing of FIR alleging cheating for failure to repay a loan. The court held that the dispute was purely civil in nature, as the loan was taken and part payment was made, indicating no initial dishonest intention. The court quashed the FIR to prevent abuse of process of law. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Abuse of Process - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, observing that continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law when the dispute is civil and no criminal offence is made out. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR for cheating under Section 420 IPC can be quashed when the dispute is essentially of a civil nature regarding repayment of a loan.
Final Decision
The court allowed the criminal application and quashed FIR No. 96 of 2016 registered at Sailu Police Station, District Parbhani, and all proceedings arising therefrom. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Cheating requires fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise
- mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating
- civil dispute cannot be converted into criminal case
- Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC
