2021 (9) TMI 943 - HC - Indian Laws

Petitioner acquitted of Section 420 IPC charge due to lack of dishonest intention.

Shiv Prasad Choubey Versus State of Jharkhand and Dudhnath Tiwary

Shiv Prasad Choubey Versus State of Jharkhand and Dudhnath Tiwary - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC were satisfied.2. Whether the transaction between the complainant and the petitioner was of a civil nature or constituted a criminal offence.3. Whether the petitioner had a dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.4. The relevance of the subsequent conduct of the petitioner in determining the offence under Section 420 IPC.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC were satisfied:The petitioner argued that the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC were not satisfied, as the transaction was a friendly loan, which negated the criminal intent necessary for a conviction under this section. The court reiterated that for an offence of cheating to be made out, the complainant must show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or representation. The court found that the evidence did not support the presence of such intention at the inception of the transaction.2. Whether the transaction between the complainant and the petitioner was of a civil nature or constituted a criminal offence:The court examined the nature of the transaction and found that it was essentially a civil dispute. The transaction was characterized as a friendly loan, and the failure to repay did not inherently constitute a criminal offence. The court noted that every breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless there was deception at the very inception of the transaction.3. Whether the petitioner had a dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction:The court scrutinized the evidence and found no indication that the petitioner had a dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. The complainant and the witnesses described the transaction as a friendly loan, and there was no evidence that the petitioner intended to cheat the complainant from the beginning. The appellate court's reliance on the subsequent conduct of the petitioner to infer dishonest intention was found to be misplaced.4. The relevance of the subsequent conduct of the petitioner in determining the offence under Section 420 IPC:The court highlighted that the subsequent conduct of the petitioner, such as the bouncing of cheques and failure to adhere to an agreement to repay, could not establish the initial dishonest intention required for a Section 420 IPC offence. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that the intention to cheat must be present at the inception of the transaction, and subsequent failure to fulfill a promise does not constitute cheating.Conclusion:The court concluded that the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC could not be sustained due to the absence of evidence showing dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. The judgment of the appellate court upholding the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted. The court emphasized that the dispute was of a civil nature and did not meet the criteria for a criminal offence under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner was discharged from his liabilities under the bail bond, and the criminal revision petition was allowed.