Flash floods an 'act of God', ensuing damage to rented building can't be basis of cheating case: J&K High Court

Damage caused a building due to flash floods cannot be blamed on its landlord, observed the Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently while quashing a cheating case filed against the landlord and trustees of a school by a person who had taken over its management [Ghulam Rasool Rather & Ors. v. UT of J&K].

The woman who had taken over the management claimed that the school's trustees had failed to disclose structural deficiencies in the school building when it was handed over to her. She, therefore, accused the school's trustees and the building's landlord of cheating her.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, however, observed that the primary basis for such an allegation was the damage caused to the building after flash floods that occurred in the area in 2013.

Flash floods are an act of God and cannot, by itself, form the basis of a criminal cheating case, the Court held.

"Merely because water of flash floods entered the school building and it caused damage to the school building does not make out a case of cheating of the petitioners (school trustees, landlord of building). The petitioners/trustees only happen to be the managers of the school and they had transferred the management of the school along with its goodwill to respondent No. 2 (complainant). They had nothing to do with the quality of the school building nor were they responsible for flash floods, which were an act of God," the Court said.

The Court reiterated that to constitute the criminal offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (now replaced by Section 318 of the BNS, 2023), there must be a fraudulent or dishonest intention.

Mere breach of contract or subsequent difficulties cannot automatically give rise to criminal prosecution, it added.

The High Court was hearing two petitions to quash a criminal case filed against several trustees of a school, as well as the landlord in whose property the school was being run.

The case was registered on a complaint filed in 2021 by a woman to whom the management of the school was transferred in 2012.

The complainant alleged that she was assured that the school had a bright future but later discovered several problems relating to the school premises and its management.

She said that around 12 inches of water entered the school building during flash floods in November 2013, causing damage and financial losses. The complainant alleged that such recurring problems of flash floods had been concealed from her when she took over the school.

She also alleged other issues with the school, including the irregular admission of the foster son of a former Minister, which later became the subject of a criminal case.

However, the Court held that merely because this admission was investigated, it could not lead to an inference that the trustees had intended to cheat the complainant when the school was transferred.

The Court also examined allegations concerning the condition and repairs of the school building. The records showed that the landlord had sought permission to carry out repairs, and that an Executive Engineer had later reported that the building was not fit for educational purposes.

The Chief Education Officer at Budgam, thereafter, asked the complainant to make alternative arrangements for the students.

The Court observed that the material indicated that repairs could not be carried out because the complainant had not vacated the building. In any event, such an issue of repairs could not constitute cheating, it held.

The complainant had also claimed that her modesty was outraged by the school building's landlord in 2017, when he allegedly entered the school premises and laid hands on her.

However, the Court questioned why it took the complainant four years to report this incident.

The Court also took note of the petitioners' (accused trustees, landlord) argument that the complainant had only filed the case after the school's landlord demanded that she pay pending rental arrears. A civil suit seeking the recovery of these rental dues is also pending.

The High Court concluded that the instant cheating case appeared to have been launched to pressurise the landlord and trustees into entering into a compromise in the pending civil dispute.

Similarly, it also raised doubts about the genuineness of the allegation that the school's landlord had outraged the modesty of the complainant.

"In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case as noticed hereinbefore, the allegation relating to outraging of modesty of respondent No.2 incorporated in the impugned FIR is nothing but an attempt on her part to harass petitioner Ghulam Rasool Rather with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge," the Court said.

It proceeded to quash the entire case against the petitioners.

Advocates Asma Rashid and Shakir Haqani appeared for the petitioners.

Advocate Younis Hafeez represented a respondent.

[Read Order]