SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Sachin Garg – Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 2024 (Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4415 OF 2023)
Decided On : 30-01-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 504 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal breach of trust, insult and criminal intimidation – Cognizance of offence – While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons a Magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, duty of Magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding – Past commercial relationship between appellant’s employer and respondent no.2 is admitted – Dispute pertains to revision of rate per unit in an ongoing commercial transaction – Dispute, per se, is commercial in nature having no element of criminality – No case at all has been made out that would justify invoking machinery of Criminal Courts – Allegation of criminal intimidation is against appellant directly – whatever be value or quality of such allegations – For that reason complaint case cannot be rejected at nascent stage on sole ground of not implicating company – Criminal Complaint Case quashed. (Paras 14,18, 19, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Dispute is over a purchase order issued for supply of Dissolved Acetylene Gas (DA Gas). Original purchase order dated 01.04.2019 was amended twice on the basis of representations made by the respondent no.2. First amendment was made on 18.07.2019 by which rate was increased from Rs.1.55 per unit to Rs.1.65 per unit and second amendment was made on 20.12.2019 through which rate per unit was brought down to Rs.1.48 from Rs.1.65. An invoice was raised by respondent no.2 with aforesaid rates for a total sum of Rs.9,36,693.18/-. Dispute revolves around non-payment of said sum.
Findings of Court:
It is true that appellant could seek discharge in course of proceeding itself before concerned Court, but no case at all has been made out that would justify invoking machinery of Criminal Courts. Dispute, per se, is commercial in nature having no element of criminality.
Result : Appeal allowed. Criminal Complaint Case quashed.
JUDGMENT
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, at the material point of time, stood posted as the Head of factory of Exide Industries Limited (“EIL”), a corporate entity, situated at Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana. The respondent no.2, ran a proprietary concern, Ambika Gases. He was the supplier of Dissolved Acetylene Gas (“DA Gas”), which is used for manufacturing battery in the said factory. So far as the present appeal is concerned, the dispute is over a purchase order issued for the supply of the said item. The original purchase order dated 01.04.2019 was amended twice on the basis of representations made by the respondent no.2. The first amendment was made on 18.07.2019 by which the rate was increased from Rs.1.55 per unit to Rs.1.65 per unit and the second amendment was made on 20.12.2019 through which the rate per unit was brought down to Rs.1.48 from Rs.1.65. An invoice was raised by the respondent no.2 with the aforesaid rates for a total sum of Rs.9,36,693.18/-. The dispute revolves around non-payment of the said sum. However, it has been contended by the appellant that EIL, after ascertaining the market price of DA Gas from other vendors, by a letter dated 29.06.2020, reconciled the accounts by informing respondent no.2 of what it claimed was foul play with respect to revision of rates and appropriated the alleged illegal amounts claimed by the vendor (respondent no.2) from the invoice.
3. The respondent no.2 instituted a complaint case in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the substance of the complaint would be revealed from the following passages of the petition of complaint (registered as Misc. Application No.317/2020):-
Cognizance of offence – While at the stage of issuing summons Magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, duty of Magistrate is also to be satisfied whether t....
Criminal liability under IPC sections requires clear evidence of entrustment and dishonest intention, which were absent in this case.
Fraudulent intent at the inception of a transaction is essential to establish cheating; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating under criminal law without evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of the contract's formation.
Mere non-payment for goods in a civil transaction cannot constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust under IPC; intent must be proven.
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction.
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.