IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Criminal breach of trust and cheating – To commit an offence mens rea is one of essential ingredients – When FIR alleges dishonest conduct on part of accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing FIR.
(2) Quashing of criminal case – Petition to quash FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

(Manoj Misra, J.)

1. Leave Granted.

2. This appeal impugns judgment and order of the High Court¹[High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi] dated 01.02.2024 passed in Cr. M.P. No.3796 of 2018 whereby, exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973²[CrPC], the High Court quashed the order dated 20.02.2020, by which cognizance was taken, and all further proceedings in connection with Case No.78 of 2016, registered at P.S. Sakchi, corresponding to G.R. No.1627 of 2016, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate³[CJM], Jamshedpur.

Factual Matrix

3. The appellant (original complainant) filed an application, under Section 156(3) CrPC, alleging that the second and third respondents (original accused) offered to take appellant’s Truck (Trailor No.NL 01K 1250) on a monthly rent of Rs.33,000, exclusive of driver’s/helper’s salary, for plying it between Tata Steel Jamshedpur and Kalinganagar; pursuant to that offer, an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the accused on 10.07.2014 thereby letting the vehicle to the accused for a period up to 31.03.2016 with effect from 14.07.2014; and, in furtherance thereof, possession of the Truck was given to the accused. In return, they paid one month rent, after deducting TDS. But thereafter, though the Truck had been in possession of the accused since July 2014, rent including arrears amounting to Rs.12,49,780 was not paid despite repeated false assurances.

4. On the aforesaid application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the learned CJM vide order dated 12.11.2016 directed the police to institute a case and investigate.

5. During investigation when despite notice under Section 41A CrPC the accused did not appear, the police applied to the CJM for issuance of NBW⁴[Non-bailable Warrant], against the accused. The said application was allowed vide order dated 30.06.2017.

6. Aggrieved with the order dated 30.06.2017, the second and third respondents filed application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the aforesaid order as well as proceedings pursuant to the FIR⁵[First Information Report], registered as Case No.78 of 2016 at P.S. Sakchi.

7. In the application under Section 482 CrPC it was, inter alia, alleged that no agreement was executed; that appellant intended to let out his Truck parked inside Tata Steel Factory, but, despite payment of advance rent of one month, necessary papers concerning the Truck were not provided, therefore, no agreement was executed; and even if it is taken that agreement was executed, no offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is made out.

8. While the application under Section 482 CrPC was pending before the High Court, on a police report, cognizance was taken by CJM on 20.02.2020 and processes were issued under Section 204 CrPC. Consequently, respondent nos. 2 and 3 (original accused) sought amendment in their prayer before the High Court so as to include the prayer to quash the cognizance order.

9. The High Court vide impugned order quashed the order of cognizance and all further proceedings in the case concerned while leaving it open to the original complainant to take recourse to civil remedies.

Reasoning of the High Court

10. The High Court reasoned thus:

a. There is no allegation of entrustment in the FIR, therefore, offence of criminal breach of trust, punishable under Section 406 IPC⁶[The Indian Penal Code, 1860], is not made out.

b. Admittedly, one month rent was paid, therefore, dishonest intention from the very beginning was not there. The application is only for recovery of rent, which can be realised by taking recourse to appropriate civil proceeding. Hence, no offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is made out.

11. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, original complainant is before us.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

Submissions on behalf of Appellant

13. On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted:

a. The FIR did disclose that after makin