Kolkata, April 25 -- Observing that mere breach of the tenancy agreement does not constitute the offence of cheating, the Calcutta High Court quashed a criminal proceeding against a tenant who alleged the case was lodged to cloak a civil dispute.
The bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee was moved by the petitioner seeking quashing of the criminal case.
The petitioner contended that the complainant alleged that the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent of Rs 910000, and for which the tenancy was terminated on December 31, 2020, and that the petitioner wrongfully restrained the complainant and manhandled him whenever he tried to make his way for climbing second and third floor of the building.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the dispute was civil in nature, involving a landlord-tenant disagreement over rent, and did not constitute criminal offences such as cheating (Section 420, IPC), criminal breach of trust (Section 406, IPC), or wrongful restraint (Section 341, IPC).
The opposite party's counsel countered that the petitioner's actions demonstrated fraudulent intent from the inception of the tenancy, necessitating a criminal trial.
The court observed that the dispute centered on non-payment of rent for part of the tenancy period, a civil matter arising from the tenancy agreement. The total rent due was Rs 19,60,000 with Rs 10,50,000 paid and a Rs 2,10,000 security deposit held by the complainant, leaving Rs. 700000 allegedly due. This did not constitute misappropriation or entrustment. Further, there was no evidence of initial deception or fraudulent intent at the inception of the tenancy agreement.
Mere failure to fulfil a promise doesn't constitute cheating unless dishonest intent is proven from the beginning. Subsequent suspicious conduct alone cannot justify criminal prosecution for cheating, the court observed.
The court noted that civil remedies, such as a suit for damages, were appropriate for such disputes.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.