SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 995

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT PAUL, J.
M/s. Delta Electronics & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
CRR 715 of 2020
Decided on : 21-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Mr. S.S. Saha.
For the Respondent: Mr. Imtiaza Ahmed, Ms. Ghazala Firdaus, Mr. Sk. Saidullah, Mr. Mithun Mondal, Mr. Md. Arsalan.

The ingredients required to constitute the offenses of criminal breach of trust and cheating were not prima facie present against the petitioners.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - ENTRUSTMENT - CHEATING - DISHONEST INDUCEMENT - [SECTION 406, 420 IPC] - The court held that the ingredients required to constitute the offenses of criminal breach of trust and cheating were not prima facie present against the petitioners. There was no entrustment in favor of the petitioners by the complainant, and there was no fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the petitioners. The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, in a revision petition, challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against them for offenses under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant alleged that the petitioners had supplied defective goods worth Rs. 6,92,90,762/- during the period 2008 to 2016, which were still lying in the complainant's godown, and that the petitioners had failed to pay or refund the amount or replace the defective goods.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no entrustment of property by the complainant to the petitioners, as the petitioners were the ones who delivered the products (alleged to be defective). The court also found that there was no fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the petitioners, as the parties had a business transaction for 8 years before the complaint was filed.

Issues: Whether the ingredients required to constitute the offenses of criminal breach of trust and cheating were present against the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC are entrustment, misappropriation or conversion to one's own use, and dishonest use or disposal of property. In the present case, there was no entrustment in favor of the petitioners by the complainant, and there was no evidence of misappropriation or dishonest use or disposal of property by the petitioners.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt Paul, J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding being Complaint Case No. CS/0088331/2016 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta.

2. The petitioners’ case is that the opposite party no. 2 in the complaint dated 25.05.2016 has stated as follows :-

    i. That during the period 2008 to 2016 the petitioners supplied defective goods worth Rs.6,92,90,762/- which is still lying in the godown and the petitioners herein have failed to pay or refund the amount nor did they replace the defective goods with new one and that letter of credit that is required to be made within 90 days had already been made in terms of the agreement.

ii. That the complainant company on several occasions requested the petitioners to pay the money back but a total sum of Rs. 6,92,90,762/- is still lying outstanding to be payable by the petitioners herein and that the complainant being the opposite party no. 2 is entitled to get an interest on the sum outstanding at the rate of 18% per annum and also to have a sum of Rs.68,460/- as compensation for blocking the godown of the complainant with the defective goods of the petitioners.

iii. That the complainant has also sent a demand notice to the petitioners through their learned advocate but the petitioners have not cleared the outstanding dues.

iv. That the petitioners have cheated and caused breach of trust by having mislead the opposite party to enter into the agreement which ought not to have been entered into if the complainant knew that they will not get the money back on complaint of defective goods.

3. That M/s. Compact Lamps Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act by an order dated 11.01.2019 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, in connection with an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code being No.(IB)1372(PB)/2018, was declared insolvent and an order or moratorium was passed.

4. Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations as labeled in the petition of complaint is solely private and purely civil in nature since the same revolves around allegations regarding breach of terms of an agreement, and moreover the averments in the petition of complaint is expressive that the opposite party has claimed a sum of money with interest which can never be the domain of the sections in which the case has been started and is pending against the petitioners and hence the same is liable to be quashed.

5. The following judgments have been relied upon by the petitioners:-

(ii) Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha vs. Narayan Singh & Anr. reported in (1998) 5 SCC 694.

Both these judgments relate to dispute in respect of landed property.

6. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the complainant has all along been demanding replacement of defective articles and his dues, but the petitioners have failed to do so in spite of notice. The complainant has made out a prima facie case against the petitioners as alleged and as such the case should be permitted to proceed towards trial and the revision be dismissed.

7. The relevant statements made by the complainant in the written complaint are:-

    i) The complaint was filed by the complainant being authorized by the Board of Directors resolution dated 12th February, 2016.

ii) The parties herein entered into an agreement in the year 2008.

iii) The procedure which was followed by the complainant company was that they would place orders with the accused no. 1 for supply of goods and the accused nos. 2 and 3 used to accept and act upon the same. The essential terms of the agreement between the parties are recorded in the purchase orders. The terms include delivery period of 30 days from the date of receipt of purchase

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top