TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....derstanding (MOU) dated 16-8-2000 was executed between the accused and the complainant for the period 16-8-2000 to 30-11-2000, which, inter alia, stipulated that 50% of the payments against monthly quantity would be given in advance and balance 50% on receipt of the goods by M/s. Shikhar Enterprises or its sister concern. The accused had two firms, namely, (1) M/s. Shikhar Enterprises, and (2) M/s. Gulshan Agencies at Delhi. The complainant delivered 56,94,120 reels of steel grip tapes valued at Rs. 3,38,62,860 to the accused during the period 19-8-2000 to 20-11-2000 and out of this amount, the accused made only part payment of Rs. 3,05,39,086 leaving balance amount of Rs. 33,23,774. The allegations are that after making this payment, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this notice by you, you should arrange to pay Rs. 46,79,275 which are due from you to my client. My client is also demanding simple interest at the rate of 10% on above amount for loss of interest. If you failed to act upon as per notice, my client will take necessary action against you and you will be held responsible for all expenditure of it. Legal charges of this notice are kept on you. In the aforesaid notice, there is no whisper about any deceit or cheating. On 3-5-2001, a complaint was filed by the complainant with Bhor Police Station where except a vague allegation about cheating, nothing of substance was stated. It would be useful to reproduce, as under, the said complaint: Shri Anil Mahajan is the dealer of the Company for goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omplaint, they entered into memorandum of understanding. Grievance seems to be that the accused failed to discharge obligations under the MOU. In the complaint, there was no allegation that there was fraud or dishonest inducement on the part of the applicant and thereby the opponent parted with the property. Reliance has been placed, in that order, on various decisions of this Court holding that from mere failure of a person to keep up promise subsequently, a culpable intention right at the beginning that is, when he made the promises cannot be presumed. A distinction has to be kept in mind between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement. The subsequent con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... defense of the accused and the stand taken in reply to notice because the complainant's own case is that over rupees three crores was paid and for balance, the accused was giving reasons as above noticed. The additional reason for not going into these aspects is that a civil suit is pending inter se the parties for the amounts in question. 9. In Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan 2001 (3) SCC 513 : 2001 SCC (Cri.) 565) this Court was considering a case where the complainant had alleged that the accused was not regular in making payment and committed default in payment of installments and the bank had dishonored certain cheques issued by him. Further allegation of the complainant was that on physical verification certain chairs were fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts committed the offence Under Section 420 Indian Penal Code and the case of the Appellant is that the Respondents have cheated him and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver property. To deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false and which the person practising the deceit knows or believes to be false. It must also be shown that there existed a fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of commission of the offence. There is no allegation that the Respondents made any wilful misrepresentation. Even according to the Appellant, the parties entered into a valid lease agreement and the grievance of the Appellant is that the Respondents failed to discharge their contractual obligations. In the complaint, ....