Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1688

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Paramjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3415 of 2024) with Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 217 of 2025
Decided On : 15-09-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Himanshu Sharma, AOR Mr. Sandeep, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Varun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Kamlesh Kohli, Adv. Ms. Richa Attrey, Adv. Mr. Arvind Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Nanditta Batra, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Garg, Adv. Mr. Ashish Gopal Garg, Adv. Ms. Shweta Garg, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Subhash Chander Juneja, Adv. Mr. Bankey Bihari, AOR Mr. Akash Chaudhary, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal law ought not become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendetta – Route through criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made out, cannot be permitted.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420 read with Section 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating and conspiracy – Culpable intention when promise was made cannot be presumed but has to be supported with cogent facts – In facts of present case, there is clear absence of dishonest and fraudulent intention on part of appellants as regards sale and purchase agreement – There is no allegation in First Information Report or charge-sheet indicating either expressly or impliedly any intentional deception or fraudulent/dishonest intention on part of appellants right from the time of making promise or misrepresentation – Nothing has been said on what misrepresentations were and how appellants intentionally deceived complainant/ respondent – Mere vague allegations by complainant/ respondent that appellants failed to provide a product of a particular specification and failed to replace faulty machines do not satisfy test of dishonest inducement to deliver a property or part with a valuable security as enshrined under Section 420 IPC – Allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against appellants herein have been made with a mala fide intent – While complainant has made allegations against appellants herein and a charge-sheet has also been filed, he has failed to justify the same before this Court – Such actions would create significant divisions and distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on judicial system, particularly criminal courts – Delay in lodging of FIR, coupled with vague allegations do not inspire confidence of this Court to allow criminal proceedings to continue against appellants – Complainant had alternative remedy of filing civil suit claiming damages for alleged violation of his contractual rights but a route through criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made out, cannot be permitted – Criminal law ought not become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendetta – Appellants could not be attributed any mens rea and allegations levelled by prosecution against appellants are unsustainable – Impugned order of High Court set aside and criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 16, 17, 21, 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Upon completion of investigation with respect to FIR, final police report was submitted before court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisinghpur charging appellants of offences under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC. Thereafter, Paramjeet Singh preferred a petition before High Court under Section 482 of CrPC as Cr. MMO No.288/2013 praying for the relief of quashing of all proceedings arising out of FIR No. 11/2023. High Court by impugned order dated 02.01.2024 dismissed said application.
Findings of Court:
While complainant has made allegations against appellants herein and a charge-sheet has also been filed, he has failed to justify the same before this Court. Such actions would create significant divisions and distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on judicial system, particularly criminal courts.
Result : Appeal and Writ Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Cr.MMO No.288/2023 dismissing the application filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘CrPC’ for short) preferred by the accused-appellant, Paramjeet Singh and refusing to quash the proceedings arising out of FIR No.11/2023 dated 14.02.2023 that was filed by Kushal K. Rana, the complainant/respondent No.3- proprietor of M/s Soma Stone Crusher.

3. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.217/2025 has been preferred by accused-petitioner, Sarabjit Singh, being aggrieved by the chargesheet submitted on 27.07.2023 arising out of the very same FIR No.11/2023 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, Kangra District, Himachal Pradesh wherein both Paramjeet Singh and Sarabjit Singh were arraigned as accused and charged under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC’ for short). In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.11/2023 and all the subsequent proceedings emanating from it.

4. Since both the appeal and writ petition arise from the same facts and circumstances, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The appellant and the writ petitioner shall henceforth be referred to as the ‘appellants’.

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are brothers running business firms dealing in stone crushing. Appellant Paramjeet Singh runs a proprietorship M/s Sardara Singh & Sons having GST No.:03AYQPS7151J3ZV. Petitioner Sarabjit Singh runs a proprietorship M/s Saini Engineering Works having GST No.:03BVHPS8462D1ZG.

6. On 12.12.2017, a sale and purchase agreement was entered into by M/s Soma Stone Crusher with M/s Saini Engineering Works for the purchase of a 20X40 ‘sand ruula machine’ and conveyor and structures for a consideration of Rs.9,12,912/-. In pursuance of the said agreement, a cheque bearing No.024210 dated 13.01.2018 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was drawn by M/s Soma Stone Crusher in favour of M/s Saini Engineering Works at Punjab National Bank, Jalsinghpur, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

7. Upon presentation of the said cheque for encashment, the same was returned by the bank with a remark: ‘Stop Payment’. Aggrieved by the same, M/s Saini Engineering Works, through Special Power of Attorney Paramjeet Singh (appellant herein), filed a complaint in April, 2018 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (“the Act”, for short) being NACT/306/2018 against M/s Soma Stone Crusher and the complainant/respondent No.3.

8. Thereafter, after five years from the sale-purchase agreement dated 12.12.2017, an FIR No.11 dated 14.02.2023 was lodged at Police Station Lambagaon under Section 420 IPC at the instance of the complainant/respondent No.3 against the appellant. The allegations in the said FIR can be crystallized as under:

ii. It was assured by the appellant that in case the said ruula set fitting was not found as per the above said specification, the same shall be replaced by him.

iii. It was also agreed by him that the said cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be presented only after complete satisfaction of the complainant/respondent No.3 that the said ruula set fitting was as per the specifications as agreed upon.

iv. It was found that the weight of the said ruula set fitting was only 12 tons instead of the promised 14 tons and the output of the same was only 500 feet per hour instead of 1000 ft. to 1200 ft. per hour.

v. Due to the delivery of a product with wrong specifications and failure to replace the same by the appellant, the complainant/respondent No.3 has suffered a loss of Rs. 50