MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN (D) THR. LRS. v. AHSANUL GHANI v. SUDHA SEETHARAM & Anr.

2.1 In the present case, the first respondent has alleged in the complaint that the appellants have committed offences under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. It is clear from the face of the complaint, that no amount was entrusted by the first respondent to either of the appellants and there was no dishonest inducement of the first respondent by the appellants to deliver any property. As stated by the first respondent in the complaint, the money belonged to the son of the appellants. It was transferred by the appellants’ son to her on his own volition. The money was alleged to have been returned to the appellants on the instructions of their son. A plain reading of the complaint thus shows that the ingredients necessary for constituting offences under Sections 405, 415 and 186 PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY v. SUDHA SEETHARAM 187 420 of the Penal Code are not made out. Thus, the complaint in the present case is bereft of the basic facts necessary to constitute the offences alleged under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 of the Penal Code. [Paras 20 and 21][196-E-F, 197-D]

2.2 In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed. [Para 24]