Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 670
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Sri. Ranadhir Sharma, S/o- Late Nalini Sarma - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam - Respondents
Criminal Petition No.407 of 2013
Decided on : 20-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. D. Choudhury, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Borthakur, Additional Public
A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating under IPC unless fraudulent intent is established at the time of the transaction.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482, 401 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 417, 420 - Quashing of complaint - The petitioner sought to quash a complaint alleging cheating under IPC, asserting that the dispute was civil in nature and lacked criminal intent - The court found no allegations of deception or fraudulent inducement, leading to the conclusion that the complaint did not meet the necessary legal standards for criminal prosecution. (Paras 3, 9, 10)
(B) Criminal Intent - To establish cheating under IPC, fraudulent or dishonest intention must be shown at the time of the transaction - Mere breach of contract does not suffice for criminal liability. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of cheating by failing to open a joint account as per contract terms after subcontracting work, leading to a complaint under IPC Sections 417 and 420. The complainant alleged misappropriation of funds. (Paras 4, 9)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaint lacked essential elements of deception and fraudulent intent, rendering the cognizance taken by the Magistrate erroneous. (Paras 10, 11)
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations constituted a criminal offense under IPC or were merely a civil dispute. (Paras 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without allegations of deception or fraudulent intent, a mere breach of contract cannot lead to criminal prosecution under IPC Sections 417 and 420. (Paras 9, 10)
Result: The complaint and all subsequent orders were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. None appears for the respondent No.2/complainant.
2. It appears that this Court by order dated 02.03.2015 has held that notice has been duly served on the respondent No.2. However, despite of receipt of notice, respondent No.2 has not appeared before this Court till date.
3. This petition is filed under Section 482, read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the complaint case being C.R. Case No. 213/2011 filed by the respondent No.2 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon corresponding to Dhaligaon P.S. Case No. 123/2011 under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and the subsequent Charge-sheet No. 69/2012 dated 27/06/2012, under Section 417/420 of IPC and the order dated 11/10/2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon in G.R. Case No. 641/2011 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 417/420 of IPC.
4. It appears that a complaint case was filed by respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner received two contracts of BGR Oil Refinery and accordingly, as sub- contractor, the said works to the respondent No.2 in respect of which a contract was executed between them on 11.10.2010 and a Power of Attorney was also give to the respondent No.2 on 17.10.2010. It is alleged that though the respondent No.2 executed the aforesaid two works by spending his own money, however, the petitioner did not open a joint account as per the terms of the contract and instead received running bill in order to misappropriate the same behind the back of the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint case was registered under Section 420 of IPC and after investigation, the Charge-sheet was submitted under Section 417/420 of IPC and thereafter the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon took cognizance by order dated 11.10.2012 against the petitioner under Section 417/420 of the IPC. Accordingly, the instant criminal petition has been filed for quashing the subject FIR, Charge-sheet as well as the entire criminal proceeding.
5. Mr. D. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the face of the allegation made out in the complaint, it is manifestly apparent that the dispute is purely a civil one and hence, continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner is wholly unjustified.
6. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam fairly submits that no criminality whatsoever, arises out of the allegation set out in the present FIR.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.
8. Apt to reproduce the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 for ready reference:
“TRANSLATED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
In the court of CJM Bongaigaon
CR Case No. 213/2011
Complainant- Md Safiur Mondal (23)
S/O Md Sukur Ali Mondal
Vill Bortolowa
PS Dhaligaon
Dist- Chirang, BTAD
Assam.
Accused- Sri Ranadhir Sarma,
S/O Lt Nalini Sarma,
R/O Abhayapuri Town, Ward No.3, P.S-Abhayapuri, District - Bongaigaon, Assam.
Presently residing at:
C/O- Sri Hemanta Sarma
B.O.C Gate, Bongaigaon
P.S and Dist Bongaigaon, Assam.
Witness- 1.Aynal Hoque
S/O-Lt Ismail SK
R/O- Bortolowa
PS- Dhaligaon
Dist- Chirang, BTAD, Assam
Date, time and place of occurrence-
On 17/09/2011, at about 10.00 A.M in front of Gate No.1 of BGR Oil Refinary under Dhaligaon Police Station.
Offence under section- U/S-420 I.P.C
Your Honour,
The complaint of the complainant is that:
1. The complainant is the permanent resident of the above mentioned address and use to do different types of sub-contract.
2. The accused is the permanent resident of the above mentioned address and is a contractor and in respect of that known to the complainant.
3. The accused has received two contracts of BGR Oil Refinery bearing Tender No.CC10YP 167/763, Work Order No.23210491 dtd. 27/08/2
