ORDER : This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred seeking to call for the records in Cr. No.1583 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the FIR against the petitioner. 2. On the complaint lodged by Prithi (de facto complainant), a case in S-12, Chitlapakkam P.S. Cr. No.1583 of 2012 was registered on 30.08.2012 against Madhavan (A1) and his wife Sivasri (A2), under Section 420 IPC. Subsequently, the said case has been transferred to the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF III Team, Vepery, Chennai 600 007. Challenging the prosecution against him, Madhavan (A1) is before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. To appreciate the contention of Madhavan (A1), it may be relevant to extract the essence of the allegations in the complaint given by Prithi (de facto complainant) that formed the basis for registration of the FIR. “My husband's childhood friend Madhavan did his MBA degree at Annamalai University where his wife Sivasri also studied and later, in the year 1996, they got married. After their marriage, they came to Chennai and stayed along with my husband in his sister's flat for some period. After about 2 months, they shifted their residence to a nearby flat at Radha Nagar, Chromepet. Both Madhavan and Sivasri Madhavan were employed in TVS Group at Chennai. In the year 1999, Madhavan got his employment at Dubai and during 2001, Sivasri went to Dubai along with their son. In May 2000, I got married and we are blessed with a daughter Nethra aged 10 years and a son Baby Nithin who is 3 months old. In the year 2004, my husband Bagath Singh got employment in ETA Dubai. In 2005, I shifted to Dubai with my daughter Nethra to stay with my husband. I also got job in Dubai and was working in Khaleej Times from May 2005 and then, shifted to IIR Middle East, Institute for International Research, Dubai from November 2006 onwards. In the month of February 2006, while myself and my husband met Madhavan and Sivasri at Dubai, they wanted to us invest our money in FOREX (foreign Exchange Currency) trading business. They told us that this investment only will yield the highest returns than any other business. In the month of February 2006, while myself and my husband met Madhavan and Sivasri at Dubai, they wanted to us invest our money in FOREX (foreign Exchange Currency) trading business. They told us that this investment only will yield the highest returns than any other business. Madhavan said that Sivasri and himself are closely linked with one of the biggest international trading investment company M/s. World Index Investment Ltd. situated at Sea Meadow House, Blackburne Highway, P.O. Box 116, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. They also said that their company M/s. Convergis E-Commerce LLC, Dubai, are the introducing brokers and has full influence with M/s. Royal Index LLC., Dubai, which is the operational organisation in UAE for M/s. World Index Investments Ltd.. Because of the rosy picture given by Madhavan and Sivasri thinking that our hard earned money will fetch us highest returns, we decided to invest our hard earned money in the FOREX trade business through Madhavan and Sivasri. . . . . She received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from my in-laws which is equivalent to 5000 USD. When she returned to Dubai, we paid the remaining 15,000 USD and in the month of May 2006, I entered into agreement in this regard and they issued a receipt dated 25.5.2006 for a sum of 20000 USD. Fully believing that we are going to get high returns from their business slowly, we increased our investments from 20000 USD. After six months (i.e.) on 31.01.2007, we paid another 20000 USD to Madhavan and Sivasri and increased our investments to 40000 USD. Thereafter, on 31.01.2008, we gave another 20000 USD totalling to Rs.60000 USD. In the same way, gradually, we increased our investment, on 01.01.2008, our total investment was 81,000 USD. Till 31.1.2010, we had invested 129,600 USD. Finally, as on 30.06.2010, our investments with Madhavan and Sivasri was a sum of 129600/- USD. In the same way, Sivasri and Madhavan also collected 108595 AED (Dirhams-local UAE currency) equivalent to Rs.15,00,000/- for doing gold trade business which they said will give very high returns. In the month of May 2010, very unfortunately, my father-in-law was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and my mother-in-law got the dreaded Parkinson's disease. So in order to take care of my in-laws, we both resigned our jobs and immediately shifted back to India. In the month of May 2010, very unfortunately, my father-in-law was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and my mother-in-law got the dreaded Parkinson's disease. So in order to take care of my in-laws, we both resigned our jobs and immediately shifted back to India. At that time, we requested Madhavan and Sivasri to settle our accounts at Dubai itself. They promised to settle our accounts at Chennai. Thereafter, Sivasri sent several e-mails stating that she will settle our account within a short period and she also called my husband's mobile phone so many times and told that our entire account will be settled to our full satisfaction. Thereafter, when there was a delay on the part of Madhavan and Sivasri to settle my accounts at one point of time when my husband asked Madhavan to settle our money immediately, Madhavan informed that he will settle our accounts and register his properties situated at Adyar and at the outskirts of Chennai. . . . .” 5. Thus, from the above averments, it is limpid that Madhavan (A1) and Bhagat Singh, who is Prithi's husband, were close friends; after Bhagat Singh got married to Prithi, they went to Dubai, where, Madhavan (A1) and his wife Sivasri (A2) were already settled; Bhagat Singh and Prithi wholeheartedly and voluntarily joined the FOREX trade by entering into an agreement with Prithi on 25.05.2006; they invested monies from 2006 to 2010; they returned to India and when they wanted their investment back, Madhavan (A1) had never denied his liability and had, in fact, transferred his properties to Prithi and her father-in-law, Ramasamy. 6. The learned counsel for Prithi (de facto complainant) submitted the exchange of e-mails between the parties and a reading of the e-mails clearly shows that Madhavan (A1) never had the intention to cheat Prithi or his friend Bhagat Singh at all. Suffice it to extract one e-mail dated 28.01.2012 that is sent by Madhavan (A1) from India to his wife Sivasri (A2) in Dubai with a copy marked to Prithi : “What has happened to the payments? Ramasamy Mama called home and requested me to send a mail. Hence the mail. If there is some element of truth in what you say, I request you to pay them their dues. They are in dire state, due to mounting health bill. I don't know what else to say. Ramasamy Mama called home and requested me to send a mail. Hence the mail. If there is some element of truth in what you say, I request you to pay them their dues. They are in dire state, due to mounting health bill. I don't know what else to say. I repeat the question I have been asking. Why don't you sell the flat and the land and settle the dues of some people at least? Or have you handed it over to somebody. Praveen and I do not need anything. We can take care of our lives. The pain that I have taken somebody's money is more painful than all the things that I have lost. Do something if you are left with some resources. Or if what ever you promise is false, at least be brave to say that. Nothing more to add.” 7. It is also seen that Madhavan (A1) and his wife Sivasri (A2) had a property in Panayur and true to his words, Madhavan (A1) transferred his share to Prithi, which Prithi has admitted in paragraph no.9 of her counter affidavit dated 15.08.2018. Apart from that, Madhavan has transferred his half share in a flat that was in his name in favour of Prithi's father-in-law, Ramasamy, on 21.01.2013. This is also admitted by Prithi in her counter affidavit. However, it is Prithi's contention that Sivasri (A2) has filed a suit in C.S.No.807 of 2013 before this Court seeking inter alia, a declaration that the sale deed dated 21.01.2013 executed by Madhavan in favour of her father-in-law Ramasamy is null and void and therefore, the prosecution against Madhavan (A1) should not be quashed. 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to state here that the materials produced by Prithi (de facto complainant) prior to registration of the FIR clearly show that she had entered into an agreement with Sivasri (A2) and had invested monies in the business at Dubai, for which, she has valid receipts. Even according to her, she was reaping benefits and so, she continued to increase her investments. At one stage, the business became dull, as could be seen from Sivasri's e-mail dated 10.09.2011 to Bhagat Singh, the contents of which read as under : “Bagth, Yes I called you yesterday and it was from a PCO. I don't carry a mobile because of the problems. At one stage, the business became dull, as could be seen from Sivasri's e-mail dated 10.09.2011 to Bhagat Singh, the contents of which read as under : “Bagth, Yes I called you yesterday and it was from a PCO. I don't carry a mobile because of the problems. The loan amount which we are trying to raise from the existing amounts to cover up all principle amount is getting delayed than what we expected. So I will get in touch with you in the coming week to update you. Sorry to hear that you have lost the job, let me see how soon I can clear your payment.” 9. After coming to India, the FIR has been registered on 30.08.2012 and thereafter, Madhavan (A1) has transferred his share in the properties to Prithi and her father-in-law, Ramasamy. Madhavan (A2) has never disputed the transfers, because, he did not want his close friend to suffer any monetary loss, as could be seen from his e-mail extracted in paragraph no.6 above. 10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that instead of filing a civil suit for recovery of money in Dubai, a cause of action in India has been contrived to lodge the present complaint and have an FIR registered with the police. 11. At this juncture, considering the facts obtaining in this case, it may be profitable to extract a passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. and another [ (2005) 10 SCC 228 ] : “6. ....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 conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent, dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction.... 8. The substance of the complaint is to be seen. Mere use of the expression “cheating” in the complaint is of no consequence...." In the result, the FIR in Cr. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent, dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction.... 8. The substance of the complaint is to be seen. Mere use of the expression “cheating” in the complaint is of no consequence...." In the result, the FIR in Cr. No.1583 of 2012 transferred from the file of S-12, Chitlapakkam Police Station to the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF III Team, Vepery, Chennai - 7, is quashed and as a sequel, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Connected Crl.M.P. stands closed.