Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Balfour Manuel - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. - Opp. Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 3148 of 2022
Decided On : 23-11-2023
Abuse of Process of Law - Criminal Proceeding - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code - [Section 482 Cr.P.C.] - [Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code] - The judgment discusses the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 177 of 2020, involving the offences punishable under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The court analyzed various legal principles and judgments to conclude that the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of law, and therefore quashed the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the Managing Director of Blue Dart Express Limited, sought to quash the criminal proceeding arising from a complaint alleging breach of trust and cheating. The complainant claimed that the company owed a sum of Rs. 20,40,066 but only paid Rs. 2,00,000, and misused a bank guarantee. The petitioner argued that the alleged offences were not made out against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of law, as there was no allegation of deception or criminal intent at the inception of the transaction. The court also held that the order adding the petitioner's name as an accused before the commencement of the trial was a jurisdictional error.
Issues: The issues involved the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding, the interpretation of legal provisions related to criminal breach of trust and cheating, and the timing of adding an accused's name before the trial commences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating, and only deception at the inception would constitute cheating. The court also held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only on the basis of evidence adduced during a trial.
Final Decision: The entire criminal proceeding arising from the complaint, including the order taking cognizance of the offences and the order adding the petitioner's name, was quashed and set aside.
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 entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 177 of 2020 including the order dated 14.06.2022 whereby the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner as well and also to quash the order dated 21.02.2022 by which the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur upon an application filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. added the name of inter-alia, the petitioner in the light of the statements of the inquiry witnesses and complainant.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the Managing Director of Blue Dart Express Limited. M/s. Blue Dart Express Limited appointed the proprietorship firm of the complainant namely M/s. Vikash Enterprises as the pick-up and delivery agent for the said Courier Company after entering into an agreement in this respect on 30.06.2017. As per the claim of the complainant, M/s. Blue Dart Express Limited was to pay Rs.20,40,066/- to the said proprietorship firm of the complainant but M/s. Blue Dart Express Limited agreed to pay only Rs.13,80,772/- and ultimately paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. There is also allegation that M/s. Blue Dart Express Limited by way of cheating has misused the bank guarantee furnished by the complainant and did not return the same to the complainant.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy Vs. Ramesh Ranganathan & Another, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1061, para 21 to 24 of which reads as under:-
22. In Anwar Chand Sab Nanadikar v. State of Karnataka a two-judge bench restated the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust in the following words:
“7. The basic requirement to bring home the accusations under Section 405 are the requirements to prove conjointly (1) entrustment, and (2) whether the accused was actuated by the dishonest intention or not misappropriated it or converted it to his own use to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it. As the question of intention is not a matter of direct proof, certain broad tests are envisaged which would generally afford useful guidance in deciding whether in a particular case the accused had mens rea for the crime.”
23. In Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal another two-judge bench held that entrustment of property is pivotal to constitute an offence under section 405 of the IPC. The relevant extract reads as follows:
“28. “Entrustment” of property under Section 405 of the Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence under this. The words used are, “in any manner entrusted with property”. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of “trust”. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code.”
24. None of the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust have been demonstrated on the allegations in the complaint as they stand. The first respondent alleges that the Appellant caused breach of trust by issuing grossly irregular bills, which adversely affected his professional fees. However, an alleged breach of the contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the offence of
The main legal point established is that the continuation of a criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of law if there is no allegation of deception or criminal intent at the inceptio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that every breach of contract does not give rise to an offence of cheating, and the intention to cheat must be present at the very inception. The j....
Deception and criminal intent at the inception of a transaction are crucial for establishing the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating under the Indian Penal Code.
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....
Fraudulent intent at the inception of a transaction is essential to establish cheating; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence.
Point of law : exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court....
A mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is deception at inception; individual liability requires evidence of active role and criminal intent.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
