SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indira Banerjee, C. T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Surya Prakasam & Others – Respondent
SLP (Criminal) No. 5485 of 2021
Decided on : 12-5-2022
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- quashing of FIR -- circumstances in which power to quash FIR could be exercised -- reiterated. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 referred to. [Para 4]
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 405 and 406 -- criminal breach of trust -- provision attracted where accused person had been entrusted with property and such property had dishonestly been misappropriated or converted by him to his own use -- would also be attracted if accused person dishonestly used or disposed such property in violation of any direction of law -- sine qua non for attracting said provision is entrustment of property with accused person. [Para 6]
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 416 and 420 -- cheating -- operative words and essential ingredients -- deception on part of accused or dishonest inducement by him, resulting in person delivering property to such accused or in alteration or destruction of whole or any part of valuable security. (2009) 14 SCC 696 referred to. [Para 9]
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 285 -- essential requirement -- accused must have done something with fire or any combustible matter in rash and negligent manner to endanger human life -- FIR does not show anything done by accused with fire or any combustible matter -- act of recycling plastic waste material or supply of plastic waste material for recycling not act done with fire or any combustible matter -- not negligent or rash act done to endanger human life -- essential ingredients of offence absent. [Paras 11 to 13]
ORDER :
1. This special leave petition is against a judgment and order dated 28.1.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowing Criminal Writ Petition (ST) - 4298-2020 and quashing the FIR dated 3.3.2020 in exercise of the power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for having committed offences under section 285, 406, 420 and 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The respondents No. 1 to 4 are the Directors of M/s Ramkey Reclamation and Recycling Private Limited, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013 engaged in the business of environment management services and hereinafter referred to as the “Company”.
3. The company has floated a tender inviting bids for recycling of plastics. The petitioner submitted his bid through his company M/s JK Waste Recycling Private Limited. It is not necessary to set out the terms and conditions of the tender. Suffice it so note that the petitioner lodged an FIR against respondents No. 1 to 4 making the allegations set out hereinbelow for convenience :-
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp1 SCC 335
Dalip Kaur & Ors. v. Jagnar Singh & Ors. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696
Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. Considering the allegations made in the c....
Allegations of non-payment do not constitute criminal offences unless there's evidence of dishonest intention or property entrustment.
Extraordinary power under article 226 of Constitution and also inherent powers under Section 482 of Code which it said could be exercised by High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any c....
Mere breach of contract without initial fraudulent intent does not constitute an offence under IPC sections 406 or 420.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.