SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 190

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, JJ.
Lalit Chaturvedi & Others – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13485 of 2023)
Decided On : 06-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajul Bhargava, Sr. Adv., Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv., Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Adv., Ms. Deepali, Adv., Mr. Pulak Bagchi, Adv., Ms. Chander Kiran, Adv., Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajat Singh, AOR Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Chandra, Adv., Mr. Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Adv., Mr. Gautam Das, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Punia, Adv., Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, Adv., Mr. Rajinder Singh Chauhan, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation – There is clear distinction between a civil wrong in form of breach of contract, non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC – Police does not have power and authority to recover money or act as a civil court for recovery of money.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Exercise of inherent power – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. saves inherent power of High Court as it serves a salutary purpose viz. a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years when no criminal offence is made out – It is one thing to say that a case has been made out for trial and criminal proceedings should not be quashed, but another thing to say that a person must undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no offence has been made out in complaint. (Para 5)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation – There is clear distinction between a civil wrong in form of breach of contract, non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC – Complainant’s grievance is regarding failure of appellants to pay outstanding amount, in spite of repeated demands – Appellants had made payments from time to time leaving some balance – Assuming that assertions made in complaint are correct but even then criminal offence under Section 420 read with Section 415 of IPC is not established in absence of deception by making false and misleading representation, dishonest concealment or any other act or omission, or inducement of complainant to deliver any property at the time of contract(s) being entered – Ingredients to allege offence are neither stated nor can be inferred from averments – Prayer is made to police for recovery of money from appellants – Police is to investigate allegations which discloses a criminal act – Police does not have power and authority to recover money or act as a civil court for recovery of money – Charge-sheet also refers to Section 406 of IPC, but no details and particulars are mentioned – For offence of cheating, dishonest intention must exist at inception of transaction, whereas, in case of criminal breach of trust there must exist a relationship between parties whereby one party entrusts another with property as per law – In this case entrustment is missing – It is a case of sale of goods – Charge-sheet does refer to Section 506 of IPC relying upon averments in complaint – However, no details and particulars are given – Allegations of threats etc. have been made only with intent to activate police machinery for recovery of money – Initiation of criminal process for oblique purposes, is bad in law and amounts to abuse of process of law – It is for complainant to file civil suit – Impugned judgment set aside and FIR and resultant proceedings, including charge-sheet quashed – Appeal allowed. (Paras 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10)

Facts of the case:

FIR for offence(s) punishable under Sections 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered vide the complaint made by Sanjay Garg, who is respondent no. 2 in present appeal. Impugned judgment dismisses application filed by appellants under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground of delay/laches and also the factum that charge-sheet had been filed on 12.12.2019.

Findings of Court:

This Court, in a number of judgments, has pointed out clear distinction between a civil wrong in form of breach of contract, non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms; and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. Repeated judgments of this Court, however, are somehow overlooked, and are not being applied and enforced.

Result : Appeal allowed. FIR quashed.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. First Information Report1[For short “FIR”.]No. 287/2019 for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[For short “IPC”.]] was registered on 30.08.2019 with Police Station – Hapur Dehat, District – Hapur, Uttar Pradesh vide the complaint made by Sanjay Garg, who is respondent no. 2 in the present appeal. The relevant portion of the complaint, as converted into the FIR, reads as under:-

    “Sir, it is submitted that the applicant is the proprietor/owner of the firm Garg Timber Products located in Village Patna, Police Station Hapur Dehat District Hapur, in which the applicant deals in waste wood (buying and selling of wood). From 01.12.2015 to 06.08.2017, the applicant had supplied wood waste fuel worth Rs 5,69,31,811/- along with the bill to the owner of Asar Eco Power Limited, situated at Kosi Kala Village Dotana District Mathura viz. VK Chaturvedi S/o Shri Murari Lal Chaturvedi, Mob. No. 9879211625, Address Managing Director, Asar Eco Power Limited, 630 Village Dotana NH-2 Umbrella District Mathura UP and Resident of 1402 14th Floor Lasirna CHS Limited JP Road Andheri West Mumbai 400058 and Manoj Chaturvedi Director, son of Shri Murari Lal Chaturvedi, resident of 348 Nangla Paisa Mathura Uttar Pradesh Mob. No. 9719861000 and Lalit Chaturvedi Director, Asar Eco Power Limited Kosi Kala Gram Dotana District Mathura Mob. No. 9358704070 and Mukesh Sharma Director Asar Eco Power Limited Kosi Kala Gram Dotana District Mathura Mob. No. 8859008302, for which RTGS of Rs.3,76,40,553/-was made by the above four persons. The applicant is continuously demanding the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,92,91,358/-, but the above four persons are not ready to pay the remaining amount to the applicant and there is a clear refusal and they are saying that we buy goods from people like you by lying. The above four persons, with the intention of deceiving the applicant and extorting money, purchased the wood waste dishonestly and fraudulently with the intention of benefiting themselves and causing loss to the applicant and usurped the remaining amount of Rs. 1,92,91,358/- of the Applicant. The above four persons are vicious, cunning and domineering people who are not paying the remaining amount of the applicant on the strength of their dominance and are threatening to kill if the demand is made. Due to which the applicant is quite mentally disturbed and there is a threat to his life and property from the above mentioned people. The applicant went to the police station to file a report about this incident but the police station officials refused to take any action and register the applicant's report. Therefore, you are requested to direct the SHO, Police Station Hapur Dehat, to register the report of the applicant and take the strictest legal action against the above mentioned four people and to give the applicant's money to him. Date Sd Hindi Sanjay Garg Applicant Sanjay Garg Son of Late Shri Madanlal Garg Resident of 1899 New Pannapuri Garh Road Hapur Police Station Hapur Dehat District Hapur Mob. No. 9412218796. Note: I CC 325 Rajeev Kumar certify that the copy of the complaint was typed word for word by me on the computer.”

4. After the investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733[For short “Cr.P.C.”.], which verbatim reproduces the complaint and, thereupon, refers to the fact that the appellants, namely, Lalit Chaturvedi, Mukesh Sharma and Manoj Chaturvedi have approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and obtained an order granting stay of arrest. Thereafter, it is recorded as under : -

    “From the statement of the complainant and independent witnesses, it was found that the case is under Section 420 IPC and accordingly, Section 420 IPC was added. It is clear from the documents provided by the complainant and the advocate of the named accused that the named accused co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top