SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Ashok Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2375 of 2025 [S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 1850 of 2022]
Decided On : 01-05-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406 and 420 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal breach of trust and cheating – Dismissal of quashing petition – Entrustment is not necessarily a term of law – It may have different implications in different contexts – Ownership or beneficial interest in property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, must be in some person other than accused and latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way for his benefit – Appellant is yet to discharge sale price of subject export – Respondent no. 2, by referring to oral arrangement of inducement, tries to plead a case contrary to documents through which final entrustment of exported goods happened in Sri Lanka – At best, non-payment of sale price could be a civil dispute between appellant – Documents belie allegations in FIR – Continuation of FIR against appellant is abuse of process of law – Impugned order set aside and FIR quashed. (Paras 9.1, 12, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 11506 of 2017 before High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR registered for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Said Criminal Misc. Application was dismissed by High Court resulting in filing of Criminal Appeal.
Findings of Court:
Sale price was agreed to be debited to the account of M/s. Oswal Overseas accepted the same as part payment against the subject export of goods from the appellant. It might be true that the appellant is yet to discharge the sale price of the subject export. The respondent no. 2, by referring to an oral arrangement of inducement, tries to plead a case contrary to the documents through which the final “entrustment” of the exported goods happened in Sri Lanka.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 11506 of 2017 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code”) for quashing the FIR bearing C.R. No. I-06 of 2017 registered with Salabatpura, Police Station, Surat for the alleged offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). The said Criminal Misc. Application was dismissed (“Impugned Order”) by the High Court resulting in the filing of the Criminal Appeal.
3. The second respondent claims that he is running a business at Surat Textile market under the name and style of “Ansh Prints.” The nature of the business activity of the second respondent is to subject the Grey cloths purchased from weavers and process them for “Dyeing prints” and “Bal prints.” As a further process, the printed sarees are sent for cutting and saree work. The second respondent sells the finished printed and work saree products. The appellant is the director of a company registered in Sri Lanka and is doing business under the name and style of “Maayu Import and Export Ltd.” having its registered office at 103, 3rd Cross Street, Colombo-11, Sri Lanka. The places of business activity of the appellant and the respondent are noted to appreciate the subtle intricacy involved in the matter. In March 2012, the appellant and the second respondent came into contact with each other and commenced the business of exporting sarees sold by the second respondent. The export of sarees sold by the second respondent and purchased by the appellant has been facilitated through M/s. Oswal Overseas, inasmuch as the goods could be exported through an entity with an export-import license from the Government of India. The above narrative is not disputed by the parties and is stated to appreciate the setting in which an FIR has been lodged by the second respondent against the appellant. Shorn of too many details, it is noted that on 03.01.2017, the second respondent filed an FIR under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC before the Salabatpura Police Station, Surat. The FIR is registered as I-06 of 2017. The alleged offence is stated to have occurred between 16.10.2013 and 05.04.2014. The accusations in the FIR refer to the initiative of the appellant and the second respondent to establish a business relationship between them. The FIR presents a detailed narrative on the beginning of a transaction between the second respondent and the appellant. The accusations have been noted with sufficient details in the judgment impugned in the appeal. Hence, the contents of the FIR are stated in brief:
3.1 The second respondent from 2012 to 2014 was running his business at Surat Textile market, parking project shop number 133, in the name of Ansh Prints. The business is to process the grey clothes from weavers, and after the process of Dyeing, printing, and Bal print, the goods are sent for work, and after cutting the saree and packing, the same is sold to the parties directly or through a broker.
3.2 In March 2012, the appellant had come to the shop of the respondent no. 2, told him that he was having his office at Maayu Import & Export Pvt. Ltd., Maayu Impex No. 103, Third Cross Street, Colombo 11, Sri Lanka and was interested in doing business with the respondent no. 2. Since the sold goods were to be sent out of India and the respondent no. 2 did not possess an import-export licence, the appellant had asked him to send the goods through Vikrambhai Mahendrabhai Barmecha (“Vikrambhai”), owner of M/s. Oswal Overseas, at Raghunandan Textile Market. It was agreed that the payment would be made via a cheque within 60 to 90 days.
3.3 From 16.10.2013 to 05.03.2014, the second respondent, vide different bills, had sent reniyal sarees, work sarees and cotton work quality goods of 75,515 metres and 44,753 pieces, along with saree packing material bags, handwork beads and stone goods of a total worth of Rs. 39,18,108/
Kaptan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar
Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Another vs. Sudha Seetharam and Another
Criminal breach of trust and cheating – Dismissal of quashing petition – Entrustment is not necessarily a term of law – It may have different implications in different contexts.
The mere failure to pay for goods in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating under IPC without evidence of dishonest intention.
Filing an FIR for non-payment in a commercial transaction does not inherently constitute criminal offences such as cheating or breach of trust; such disputes are civil in nature.
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.