Skip to main content

Whether Failure to Pay Mobile Postpaid Bill attracts Cheating under Section 420 IPC [CASE LAW]

The Indian Penal Code, 180 - Section 420 - Mobile postpaid connection - failed to discharge liability for user charges - Held, Mere breach of trust or agreement will not by itself amount to a criminal offence under Section 420 IPC - In order to make out an offence under Section 420, the prosecution has to show that the dishonest intention to cheat existed at the time when the alleged promise in question was made. 

The transaction involved as between the parties is one arising out of a civil dispute. The purported liability of the petitioner seems to have arisen from breach of promise or agreement other than a breach followed by any dishonest intention to cheat the de facto complainant. Mere breach of trust or agreement will not by itself amount to a criminal offence under Section 420 IPC. In order to make out an offence under Section 420, the prosecution has to show that the dishonest intention to cheat existed at the time when the alleged promise in question was made. That legal proposition does not match the materials on record as well as the allegations made out through the Annexure 1 report. Consequently being satisfied that what is involved in the present case is one of civil dispute between parties, I hold that this seems to be a fit case where the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam requires to be quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Crl.MC.No. 1813 of 2014
C.C.NO.1518/2008 of ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER / ACCUSED IN CC 1518/2008 OF ACJM:
ABDUL HAKKEM P.V.
BY ADVS. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.T.A.JOY
RESPONDENT / STATE AND COMPLAINANT IN CC 1518 / 2008:
1 STATE OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION.
2 M/S BHARATE AIRTEL LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTE TELECOM S.L. AVENUE, MARADU P.O., KUNANNOOR, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY POA.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA
O R D E R
The petitioner the sole accused in C.C.No.1518/2008 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam seeks to quash Annexure 1 final report submitted by Ernakulam Town South Police Station in Crime No.106/2007 before that court.
2. The prosecution case as against the petitioner as per Annexure 1 report is that, he, after having obtained a mobile postpaid connection in his name, failed to discharge his liability for user charges for a period of 5 months from 21.7.2006 to 21.11.2006. The allegation is that the petitioner incurred a gross monetary liability of ₹97,678.5/- for the period and after making a part payment of ₹10,580/-, he kept the balance in arrears. The default on the part of the petitioner, according to the prosecution, amounts to an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
3. The petitioner's case is that the transaction in question is based on an agreement between the parties and therefore the alleged liability under the transaction is purely of civil nature. In as much as what is made out is only a civil liability out of the transaction in question, the petitioner seeks the consequential criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1518/2008 pursuant to the Annexure 1 final report, to be quashed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The 2nd respondent, the de facto complainant did not appear inspite of service of notice on it.
5. On marshaling the materials on record, I find that the transaction involved as between the parties is one arising out of a civil dispute. The purported liability of the petitioner seems to have arisen from breach of promise or agreement other than a breach followed by any dishonest intention to cheat the de facto complainant. Mere breach of trust or agreement will not by itself amount to a criminal offence under Section 420 IPC. In order to make out an offence under Section 420, the prosecution has to show that the dishonest intention to cheat existed at the time when the alleged promise in question was made. That legal proposition does not match the materials on record as well as the allegations made out through the Annexure 1 report. Consequently being satisfied that what is involved in the present case is one of civil dispute between parties, I hold that this seems to be a fit case where the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam requires to be quashed.
In the result, Crl.M.C.No.1813/2014 is allowed quashing the entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.1518/2008 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.
Labels:
Location: High Ct Rd, Marine Drive, Kochi, Kerala 682031, India

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.
Post a Comment
Read more

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...
Post a Comment
Read more

Anticipatory Bail in Attempt to Murder Cases (Section 307 IPC) : What is Important to Note [Case Law]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -  Section 438 -   Grant of Anticipatory Bail -  While considering the application under Section 438, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the accusation and the antecedents of the applicant which includes whether he has been previously undergone imprisonment on conviction in respect of any cognizable offence, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and whether the accusation has been made with an object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. [Para 12]
Post a Comment
Read more