For offences under IPC Sections 420 and 406, mens rea must be established from the inception; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence without evidence of fraudulent intent.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. R. B. Phookan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. None appears for the respondent No.2/complainant on call despite the name of the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 being reflected in the Cause list.

2. This application is filed under Section 482, read with Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR registered as Moranhat P.S. Case No. 128/2014 dated 06.10.2014 under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) pending before the Officer-in-charge of Moranhat Police Station, Sivasagar.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the private respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed an FIR on 30.09.2014 before the jurisdictional Police Station alleging inter alia that the petitioner No.1 has outstanding dues amounting several crores of rupees to the respondents in respect of works executed by them pertaining to Drilling Rigs 29, 30, 31 and 50 of the Oil and Natural Gas Company (hereinafter referred to as “ONGC”) under the Principal contractor i.e. petitioner No.1. It is further alleged that for the purpose of clearing such dues, a Memorandum of Understating (hereinafter referred to as “MOU”) was entered between petitioner No.1 represented by petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the private respondents on 06.03.2014 and 07.03.2014 respectively. However, the petitioners failed to clear the outstanding dues despite repeated requests made by the private respondents from time to time. It is further alleged that accordingly, the said FIR was registered under Section 420/406/34 of IPC. Situated thus, the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the said FIR.

4. Mr. R. B. Phookan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in-fact, prior to filing the instant FIR, the private respondents forcibly entered in the premises of the petitioner No.1 and removed the valuable equipments of Rig 50 owned by the petitioner No.1, forcibly with their muscle and money power, for which a complaint was lodged by the petitioner No.1 on 29.09.2014 against such action of the private respondents. He further submits that as a counterblast and to harass the petitioner, the instant FIR has been lodged by the private respondents. He further submits that even assuming the allegation made out in the FIR to be correct, no criminal case whatsoever, is made out against the petitioners. He further submits that at best it is purely a civil dispute. He therefore submits that continuance of further criminal proceeding is wholly unjustified.

5. Per contra, Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR in question. He submits that investigation is yet to start and therefore, this Court ought not to quash the instant FIR.

6. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the contending parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. It appears that the petitioner No.1 had been awarded a contract for drilling services in the State of Assam by the ONGC, for which purpose the petitioner No.1 required the services of man management on fixed per day rate/charges and accordingly the petitioner No.1 entered into four contracts with different parties for availing the services i.e. “Man Management And Relevant Services” for operation and maintenance of Drilling Rig at Sibsagar in terms of the said contract awarded by the ONGC and the four parties with whom the petitioner No.1 entered into the said contracts are: (a) M/s Global Oil Field Services Ltd. on 25.07.2009 (b) M/s S.K. Petro Services Pvt. Ltd. on 25.10.2009 (c) M/s Rongpur Construction & Trade on 01.05.2010 and (d) M/s Excel Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd. on 25.08.2009. It further appears that in the said four contracts, arbitration clause for resolving