Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HARINATH N.
Vemulapalli Sridhar Babu S/o V. Subhas Chandra Bose – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is seeking quash of CC.No.2079 of 2024 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner is facing trial for alleged offence under Section 406 , 420, 120-B read with 34 of IPC.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement for sale and purchase of Indonesian steam coal vide contract No. LIPL-SAS/01/1/2018. The 2nd respondent is the seller and the petitioner is the buyer as per the agreement. The agreement was entered on 24.01.2018.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner also made payment of rupees one crore only to the 2nd respondent on signing of the agreement and also issued post dated cheques in anticipation of supply of coal by the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that the supply of coal and purchase of coal could not materialize and that the petitioner failed to make payment of Rs.10,23,22,100/- towards cost of material and demurrage to a tune of Rs.73,00,000/-.
-
4. It is alleged that the petitioner conspired to cheat the 2nd respondent by getting the material delivered and subsequently selling it in the market and also not paying up the 2nd respondent
Commercial disputes arising from contractual obligations should be resolved through civil remedies and not criminal prosecution unless fraudulent intent is demonstrated.
The distinction between criminal breaching of trust and cheating must establish prior dishonest intent from the outset, and purely civil disputes cannot be criminally prosecuted.
The FIR was quashed as it lacked essential elements of criminal breach of trust and cheating, being merely a misuse of criminal process to enforce a contractual obligation.
The FIR did not disclose essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust or cheating, reflecting a misuse of police powers to convert a civil dispute into a criminal proceeding.
The court held that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, emphasizing the necessity of fraudulent intent from inception.
Mere non-performance of a contract does not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust; such civil disputes must be resolved through civil law remedies rather than criminal proceedings.
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....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
