Vinu Cheeran vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The High Court held that the allegations made in the private complaint, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute offences punishable under Sections 120b, 406, 420, 421 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court found that the dispute primarily arose from a breach of the lease agreement, which is a civil matter. The Court emphasized that giving the 'colour of a criminal offence' to a civil dispute is an abuse of the process of law and cannot be encouraged. Citing the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court concluded that the proceedings were manifestly attended with mala fide and were instituted with an ulterior motive. Therefore, the Court found it to be a fit case to quash the proceedings. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, a husband and wife, are accused in Crime No. 119 of 2018, registered based on a private complaint filed by the second respondent. The complainant, who is the landlord of a commercial space, leased it to the first petitioner for a period of five years. The lease agreement stipulated a monthly rent of Rs. 1,60,000/-, exclusive of taxes, and a security deposit of Rs. 9,60,000/- plus an additional Rs. 2,00,000/-. The complainant alleges that the petitioners, after paying an initial sum of Rs. 6,40,000/- towards the security deposit, failed to pay the balance amount, monthly rents, and applicable GST/Service Tax. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR, contending that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the criminal proceedings are an abuse of process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, prima facie constitute offences punishable under Sections 120b, 406, 420, 421 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, or if they merely give rise to a civil cause of action for breach of contract. 2. Whether the reference of the private complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate was made without applying his mind and without a reasoned order, thereby constituting an abuse of process. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that there is no allegation of fraudulent intention at the time of inducement, which is essential for an offence under Section 420 IPC. They contended that non-payment of rent and other charges under a lease agreement only gives rise to a civil suit and not a criminal offence. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. to support their claim that the proceedings are an abuse of process. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state in opposition to the petition.