SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
M/s. Shikhar Chemicals – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No.11445 of 2025
Decided On : 04-08-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406 and 420 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal breach of trust and cheating – Criminal prosecution – Quashing application dismissed by High Court – Case is one of sale of goods and recovery of some balance amount – High Court held that criminal proceedings instituted by complainant in a case of pure civil dispute is justified because it may take considerable time for complainant to recover balance amount by preferring civil suit – In cases of civil dispute complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as same would amount to abuse of process of law – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration of Criminal Miscellaneous Application – Petition partly allowed. (Paras 13, 20 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Present petition arises from order passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Coram of Prashant Kumar, J.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2507/2024 dated 05.05.2025 by which application filed by petitioner herein seeking quashing of proceedings of Complaint Case No. 113283 of 2023 pending in Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar came to be rejected.
Findings of Court:
Concerned Judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office. If at all at some point of time, he is to be made to sit as a single Judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination.
Result : Petition partly allowed.
ORDER
1. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Coram of Prashant Kumar, J.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2507/2024 dated 05.05.2025 by which the application filed by the petitioner herein seeking quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case no. 113283 of 2023 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar came to be rejected.
2. With all due deference and humility at our command, we are constrained to observe that the impugned order is one of the worst and most erroneous orders that we have come across in our respective tenures as judges of this Court.
3. The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits’ end” to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable.
4. It all started with a private complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 herein in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar, which came to be registered as Complaint Case No. 113283 of 2023. The complaint reads thus:
2. That since both parties are in the same trade, they have had business relations for the past 4–5 years. In this regard, the complainant, through his firm, supplied goods (yarn) to the respondent’s firm worth a total of Rs.52,34,385/- (Fifty-two lakhs thirty-four thousand three hundred eighty-five only) between April 2019 and July 2019, against various attached tax invoices. Out of this, the respondent paid Rs.47,75,000/- (Forty-seven lakhs seventy-five thousand only) through RTGS transfers. (Statement of account showing received and outstanding amounts is attached.) A balance of Rs.4,59,385/- (Four lakhs fifty-nine thousand three hundred eighty-five only) has remained unpaid since August 2019. As per Yarn Committee and market regulations, interest at the rate of 8% is payable on the outstanding amount if not cleared within 15 days. Till the date of filing this application, an additional amount of Rs.7,23,711/- has become due as interest, which is also recoverable from the respondent.
3. That the complainant attempted to contact the respondent several times via phone for the outstanding payment, but the respondent failed to make any payment. The complainant submitted a complaint to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of the GST Zone/Range/Sector. The GST department issued notices seeking explanation from the respondent, but she failed to respond or provide any clarification. Subsequently, another legal notice was issued under Section DRC-501A of GST Act, but the respondent again did not respond. The department, through proper legal process, imposed a penalty on the respondent for fraudulently availing tax benefits. The action was taken under Section 73(9) of the Act on 19/04/2023, as per information received by the complainant under RTI (copy enclosed).
4. That the complainant, through his advocate, sent a legal notice to the respondent, which was returned undelivered from all addresses (Factory/Home/Office) with the remark that the premises were locked. All notices were sent to addresses registered with the GST department. These events made the complainant reasonably believe that the respondent has absconded after fraudulently obtaining goods and financial benefits. (Returned notices with postal documents are enclosed.)
5. That the complainant again sent a legal notice through his advocate to all GST-registered addres
State of Gujarat vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal” reported in 1968 (2) SCR 408 [Para 14] – Relied.
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others v. State of U.P. and Another”
In cases of civil dispute complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as same would amount to abuse of process of law.
The court held that a mere failure to pay for goods does not constitute criminal breach of trust, and quashing of criminal proceedings was required when the allegations pertained to a civil dispute.
(1) Issuance of process – Mere existence of some grounds which would be material in deciding whether accused should be convicted or acquitted does not generally indicate that case must necessarily fa....
The court determined that mere breaches of contract do not constitute criminal offences without proof of fraudulent intent, emphasizing that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal compl....
Fraudulent intent at the inception of a transaction is essential to establish cheating; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence.
Point of law : exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court....
Mere non-payment for goods in a civil transaction cannot constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust under IPC; intent must be proven.
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.