Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt Paul, J.
Rajesh Bhagat & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 246, 247 of 2019
Decided On : 17-01-2023
CHEATING - Section 420 IPC - CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - Section 406 IPC - Ingredients and Essential Elements - Quashing of Chargesheet - Abuse of Process of Law - Inherent Powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were implicated in a case for allegedly taking Rs. 8 lakhs from the complainant in 2015. The parties were related. Charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners on completion of investigation. The petitioners filed a revision petition praying for quashing of the charge sheet.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged were totally absent and the charge sheet was filed without there being any evidence in the case diary, at the behest of the opposite party. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore acted with material irregularity and without considering the materials on record took cognizance without going through the contents of the charge sheet. No documents were produced by the opposite party no. 2/complainant and without making any investigation, the police submitted charge sheet.
Issues: Whether the charge sheet was filed without there being any evidence in the case diary? Whether the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore acted with material irregularity and without considering the materials on record took cognizance without going through the contents of the charge sheet?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on various judgments to hold that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; inducing the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or the person so induced to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and in cases covered by second part of clause (a), the act or omission should be one which caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind or property. The Court further held that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 406 IPC are mens rea is essential ingredient of offence, there must be an entrustment, there must be misappropriation or conversion to one's own use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal contract, the accused was entrusted with the property or domain over it, he dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use such property; he dishonestly used or disposed of that property or willfully suffered any other person to do so in failure of- (a) Any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or (b) Any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the charge sheet.
JUDGMENT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - This revision has been filed praying of quashing of charge sheet vide no. 289 of 2017 dated 12.04.2017 proceedings under Sections 323/406/420/447/448/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Titagarh Police Station Case No. 169/17 dated 19.03.2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 1660 of 2017.
2. The petitioners have been implicated in the present case on the allegations that they took Rupees Eight lakhs from the complainant for their personal need in the year 2015. The parties are related to each other.
3. Charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners on completion of investigation. Being aggrieved the present revision has been filed.
4. Mr. Debasis Kar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the ingredients as required to constitute the offences alleged are totally absent and the charge sheet has been filed without there being any evidence in the case diary, at the behest of the opposite party.
5. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore acted with material irregularity and without considering the materials on record took cognizance without going through the contents of the charge sheet. No documents were produced by the opposite party no. 2/complainant and without making any investigation, the police submitted charge sheet. The petitioners are in no way connected with the said offence. Accordingly the charge sheet being bad in law, the proceeding is liable to be quashed.
6. Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the parties being related, the opposite party no. 2 gave Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight lakhs) to the petitioner in the year 2015 (allegedly in cash). But the amount though assured was not returned inspite of several requests. On going to the petitioners house for the money they were threatened, and their gold chain was allegedly snatched by the petitioners. Feeling helpless the present case has been filed. Charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners under Section 323/406/419/420/447/448/506/34 IPC.
7. Mr. S.G. Mukherjee, learned Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary and has submitted that the investigating officer finding a prima facie case of cognizable offence against the petitioners has filed the charge sheet in accordance with law.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following rulings:-
(a) In Jawahar Lal Ghosh and Others vs. Mihir Kr. Ghosh and State, (CRR No. 559 of 1998 dated 25.06.1999), 1999 CalCriLR 386, it was held:-
'.............Mere parting with the money will not amount to cheating- No whisper of any deception, any fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the side of accused person- No offence is made out- Proceedings quashed.'
(b) In M.S. Natarajan vs. Ramasis Shaw and Anr., CRR No. 985 of 1994, dated 04.01.1995, (1995 CalCriLR 210), the Calcutta High Court held:-
'..................If there was no inducement at the initial stage, subsequent inducement will not constitute the offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code-Proceedings quashed.'
(c) In Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., Criminal Appeal no. 1285 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9871 of 2019) dated 26.10.2021, 2021 AIR (SC) 5298, the Supreme Court held:-
'..................Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at beginning of transaction - Existence of dishonest or fraudulent intention not made out- Court expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal color to civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of relatively quick relief granted in criminal case in contrast to civil dispute - Such exercise is nothing but abuse of process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety - Therefore, FIR liable to be quashed.'
(d) In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., with Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1258-1
The Court held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding if it is found that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Co....
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is proven at the outset of the agreement, as established in relevant legal precedents.
The Court held that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners are not present. The Court also noted that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature....
A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating under criminal law without evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of the contract's formation.
Point of Law : Allegations made in complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on the basi....
The ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC must be satisfied for a criminal prosecution to be maintainable, even if a civil dispute exists between the parties. The pendency of a case under ....
(1) Dishonest inducement is sine qua non to attract provisions of Sections 415 and 420 of IPC.(2) Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying....
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
