IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
Navnit Kumar Son of Late Ram Krishna Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2232 of 2017
Decided on : 22-06-2022
Cheating - License Agreement - Indian Penal Code 420, 406, 504, 506 - The court discussed the license agreement between the informant and the Company, the allegations of cheating and dishonest inducement, and the legal provisions of Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted the essential ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust, and emphasized the lack of evidence to establish the accused's fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the First Information Report (FIR) filed against them under sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint alleged non-payment of dues by the Company, where the petitioners were employees, for setting up a telecommunication tower on the informant's land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not constitute any prima facie offence against the petitioners or the Company. It concluded that the criminal case was filed with malicious intentions for recovery of arrears, and the petitioners were not liable for the alleged dues.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of cheating and dishonest inducement, the lack of evidence to establish fraudulent or dishonest intention, and the abuse of the criminal process for civil disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for clear and distinct evidence to establish criminal offences, the distinction between civil disputes and criminal cases, and the exercise of caution in criminal proceedings. It applied the legal principles of cheating and criminal breach of trust to analyze the allegations.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order and the FIR, concluding that the direction to investigate the complaint amounted to an abuse of the court's process.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
2. The petitioners have preferred this application for quashing the First Information Report of Muffasil P.S. Case no.369 of 2017 (District East Champaran) registered under sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. A complaint was filed by the respondent no.4 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran against the petitioners-employees of Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Ltd. and two named employees of Kumar Infrastructure Private Ltd.. As per the prosecution case, it was stated therein that for setting up of a tower, an agreement was entered into between the complainant (respondent no.4) and Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Ltd. according to which besides the rent for the land in question, a sum of Rs.2200/ would be paid to the complainant. As per the complaint, it was further agreed upon that there would be a 20% increase in the monthly rent after three years. Payments were made to the complainant for one year in cash and in bank accounts. Later, Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) entered into an agreement with Perfect Company through which it started to manage the tower. Thereafter the Company withdrew from Perfect Company and entered into another agreement for three months with Eklavya Company. Once again, the Company withdrew from Eklavya Company and entered into an agreement with Kumar Infrastructure Private Ltd. The complainant states that he started to get Rs.2600/ per month for one year six months from Kumar Infrastructure Private Ltd. but thereafter is not receiving the said amount. Total dues is of Rs.85,000/. On asking about his dues, it is stated that he was abused and threatened and the accused state that he has not been kept there as a caretaker. He is still working as a caretaker and on the site being down he starts getting phone calls on his mobile phone. He is still involved as a caretaker. A legal notice was sent by him for payment of his dues, however the accused persons did not pay any attention on the same. As the police personnel and police station refused to register a case, the complaint was filed.
4. The complaint filed by the complainant on 5.7.2017 was registered as Complaint Case no.1332 of 2017 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran. On the order dated 5.7.2017, being passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the complaint was sent to the police station where Muffasil P.S. Case no.369 of 2017 was registered on 14.7.2017 under sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that an agreement was entered into on 28.4.2012 between the informant (respondent no.4) and M/S Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Ltd. (“the Company” in short). A copy of the agreement has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the petition. In the last page of the said agreement, a no objection certificate had been given by the informant to the effect that he has no objection if the licensee appoints its Security Guard through any agency and they further declared that neither any of the licensor nor any legal heirs of the licensor will claim for any job to the licensee. It was the categorical assertions of the petitioners that all the four petitioners were employed with the Company, however the petitioner no.3 subsequently left the employment. The Company is registered with the Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Govt. of India and in order to install a telecommunication tower entered into a license agreement according to which the Company was to install a telecommunication tower on the land of the informant on payment of monthly rent of Rs.2700/. As per the no objection certificate granted by the informant and which is part of the agreement
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others vs. State of Bihar and Another [(2000)4 SCC 168]
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and others [(2006)6 SCC 736
Kailash Kumar Sanwatia vs. The State of Bihar and Another [(2003)7 SCC 399]
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and distinct evidence to establish criminal offences, the distinction between civil disputes and criminal cases, and the ....
Proceedings quashed under inherent powers where no prima facie case for IPC offences under Ss.288,420,406,465,504,506 as essential ingredients absent even assuming all allegations true.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent from the inception of the agreement.
The distinction between civil disputes and criminal offenses is crucial; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is evidence of dishonest intention.
The judgment established that not every breach of contract amounts to a criminal offence and emphasized the importance of the presence of deception and dishonesty at the inception of a transaction to....
Fraudulent intent at the inception of a transaction is essential to establish cheating; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence.
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.