Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1347
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
Jai Kumar Goyal and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
CRR No. 2162 of 2016
Decided On : 17-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sourav Chatterjee, Suryannel Das, Aditya Mondal, Chiranjit Pal.
For the Respondents: Bidyut Kumar Ray, Pratik Bose, Sudipto Moitra, Vijay Verma, Dwaipayan Biswas.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of prior applications under Sections 154(1) & 154(3) of Cr.P.C. before filing a petition under Section 156(3) and the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating, emphasizing the need to establish fraudulent and dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction.
Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Criminal Breach of Contract - Indian Penal Code - Section 418/420/406/506/34/120B - Summary: The court quashed the FIR lodged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, finding that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and should be initiated in the appropriate civil forum. The court emphasized the necessity of prior applications under Sections 154(1) & 154(3) of Cr.P.C. before filing a petition under Section 156(3) and highlighted the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating, emphasizing the need to establish fraudulent and dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction.
Fact of the Case:
The case arose from a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. alleging criminal breach of contract by the accused for non-payment of agreed amounts, leading to the filing of an FIR under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed without complying with the provisions of Section 154(1) & 154(3) of CrPC and that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Issues: Non-compliance with provisions of Section 154(1) & 154(3) of CrPC, distinction between civil breach of contract and the offence of cheating, and the necessity of establishing fraudulent and dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of prior applications under Sections 154(1) & 154(3) of Cr.P.C. before filing a petition under Section 156(3) and highlighted the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating, emphasizing the need to establish fraudulent and dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings in connection with the FIR under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, stating that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and should be initiated in the appropriate civil forum.
JUDGMENT :
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
1. The revision application has been filed with a prayer for quashing a First Information Report lodged before Electronics Complex, Police Station Case No. 03 of 2016 dated 06.01.2016 under Section 418/420/406/506/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Facts:
2. The proceeding arose out of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) filed by the opposite party no. 2 alleging, inter-alia, that petitioners approached the opposite party no. 2/company to provide security personnel to be deployed at the site office at Kurunti P.O Moutunga, District-Dhenkana, Odisha. To that effect the deal was taken place in the office of the opposite party no. 2 who then provided the security service to the petitioners company as per work order dated 13.09.2011. From then on opposite party no. 2 started providing its service by deploying security personnel as per work order for the period between 10.10.2011 to 31.05.2013. But, the petitioners did not make the payment of all sums in the manner provided in the work order dated 13.09.2011 in spite of repeated reminders. Thereby, petitioners/ accused had entered into a deep rooted criminal conspiracy amongst themselves to cheat the opposite party no. 2/ complainant. The petitioners/accused, thereby, induced opposite party no. 2/complainant to invest a huge sum with false and fake promises. As a last resort, representative of the opposite party no. 2/ complainant company visited the office of the petitioners/accused for a amicable settlement but the accused along with other officials of their company pounced upon the representative of the opposite party no. 2/complainant and abused in filthy languages even with threat of life in case of further visit at their office.
3. The said complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was forwarded to Electronic Complex Police Station where the same was registered under FIR no. 03 /16 dated 06.01.2016 under Section 418/420/406/506/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code and the case was put into investigation.
Argument Advanced:
4. Ld. Advocate, Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioners/ accused advanced his argument on two scores. Firstly, Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed without complying the Provision of Section 154(1) & 154(3) of CrPC. In the second place, Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that gamut of the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. spells out a case of breach of contract on account of non-payment of agreed amount giving rise to a civil action.
5. In support of his argument Mr. Chatterjee relied on the following cases:
(i) Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. and Another, 2005 (10) SCC 228
(ii) Hotline Teletubes and Components Limited and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2005 (10) SCC 261
(iii) Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2005 (10) SCC 336
(iv) Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh, 2005 (10) SCC 699
(v) Veer Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and Another, 2007 (7) SCC 373
(vi) V.Y. Jose and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2009 (3) SCC 78
(vii) Dalip Kaur and Others vs. Jagnar Singh and Another, 2009 (14) SCC 696
(viii) Medmeme, LLC and Others vs. Ihorse Bpo Solutions Private Limited, 2018 (13) SCC 374
(ix) M.M. Carbon Products Private Limited vs. State of West Bengal, 2019 SCC Online Cal. 2715
(x) Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2015 (6) SCC 287
(xi) Babu Venkatesh and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2022 (5) SCC 639
(xii) Mukul Roy vs. State of West Bengal and Others, 2018 SCC Online Cal. 4861
(xiii) Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2023) SCC Online SC 946
(xiv) Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2023) SCC Online SC 948
6. Ld. Advocate, Mr. Sudipto Moitra, appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has countered the argument advanced on behalf of the pe
