IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Sanjiv Nandan Sahai, son of late Kedar Nandan Sahai and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. - Opp. Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 3036 of 2022
Decided On : 09-11-2023
Criminal Offences - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code - Section 406/420/504/34
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners received an advance amount for the sale of land, but the sale deed was not executed. The complainant alleged that the petitioners entered into another agreement and threatened the complainant when objected. The Magistrate found prima facie material for trial and issued summons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process of law. The court quashed the order and the entire criminal proceeding.
Issues: Whether the dispute was civil or criminal in nature, and whether the Magistrate's decision was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that not every breach of contract amounts to cheating and that mere retention of property does not constitute dishonest misappropriation. It also highlighted the essential ingredients for the offences under Sections 406, 420, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition, quashed the order, and set aside the entire criminal proceeding.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate –XIII, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 6177 of 2021 by which the learned Magistrate has found prima facie sufficient material to call upon the petitioners to face trial for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issue of summons to the petitioners. Prayer has also been made for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 6177 of 2021.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2 entered into an agreement with the petitioners; for sale of the land of the petitioners to the opposite party no.2-complainant, on 03.08.2020. The petitioners received an advance amount of Rs.14,51,051/- only. The total consideration amount of the property was fixed at Rs.5,25,00,000/- only. It is agreed to between the parties that the sale deed was to be executed by 28.02.2021. It was further agreed to between the parties that the second party to the said agreement i.e. the complainant-opposite party no.2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition shall forfeit the advance paid on failure to pay the balance consideration amount by 28.02.2021 or any mutually agreed date. There is no material in the record to suggest that any mutually agreed date other than 28.02.2021 was agreed to between the parties in consonance of terms of the said agreement. The complainant filed the complaint petition alleging inter-alia that during the subsistence of the agreement between the petitioners and the complainant-opposite party no.2; the petitioners entered into another agreement with some other persons for selling the said property for Rs.7,00,00,000/- and it is alleged that the petitioners also threatened the complainant-opposite party no.2 when the complainant-opposite party no.2 objected to the petitioners entering into agreement with the third person; during the subsistence of the agreement between the complainant and the petitioners. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the contents of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the two inquiry witnesses, observed that they have corroborated the version of the complainant to some extent and observed that prima facie sufficient materials are available on the record to call upon the petitioners to face the trial for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed issue of summons to the petitioners.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and 12 days after filing the complaint, the complainant-opposite party no.2 has also filed Original Title Suit No. 357 of 2021 but suppressed the same in his statement under solemn affirmation. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Judicial Magistrate without any application of mind in a very cryptic and mechanical manner, misconceived and misinterpreted the present dispute and has illegally observed that there is prima facie case for the petitioners, to face the trial.
5. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, para -13 of which reads as under:-
Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.
Rashida Kamaluddin Syed & Anr. Vs. Shaikh Saheblal Mardan (Dead) through LRS. & Anr.
State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta
Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336
Satish Chandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148
Not every breach of contract amounts to cheating, and mere retention of property does not constitute dishonest misappropriation. The essential ingredients for criminal offences under the Indian Penal....
Advance payment under oral sale agreement not entrustment for criminal breach of trust; mere failure to execute sale and selling to third party not cheating absent dishonest intention from inception.
The judgment established that not every breach of contract amounts to a criminal offence and emphasized the importance of the presence of deception and dishonesty at the inception of a transaction to....
The necessity of proving fraudulent or dishonest intention for the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
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 amount to cheating under Section 420 IPC unless there is evidence of dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction.
Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained where allegations do not demonstrate fraudulent intent or dishonest misappropriation from the inception of the transaction.
Main Legal Point
The court established that inadequate notice to a complainant in criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of process, and emphasized the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.