IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Dhanesh Kodi @ Dhanush Kori & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (Cr.) No. 322 of 2023
Decided On : 11-10-2023
Cheating - Construction Contract - Indian Penal Code, Section 406, 420, 120B - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 415, 420, 406, 120B - The court discussed the legal provisions related to cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention, and vicarious liability, and their interpretations influenced the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings related to a construction contract dispute involving allegations of cheating under the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreement was between M/s Patel Filters Infrastructure and the informant, and M/s Larsen and Toubro Construction and Mining Machinery had no direct role. It concluded that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were malicious and quashed them.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the contract, fraudulent intention, vicarious liability, and the appropriateness of criminal proceedings for a civil dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that criminal courts are not meant to settle civil disputes and that a breach of contract does not necessarily lead to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction.
Final Decision: The criminal proceedings against the petitioners were quashed, while the allegations against the owner of M/s Patel Filters Infrastructure were not interfered with.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Bankmore (Bhuli-OP) P.S. Case No.308 of 2022 registered under Section 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that the informant is the owner of M/s M.A. Construction engaged in the construction work of Water Treatment Plant and related works. The construction work of the Water Treatment Plant at Jamadoba and Sindri, PHD Division-1, Dhanbad under INNURM Work of Government of Jharkhand was awarded to M/s Larsen and Toubro Construction and Mining Machinery, Dhanbad which was initially off-loaded to M/s Patel Filters Infrastructure. M/s Patel Filters Infrastructure engaged M/s M.A. Construction for the said construction as a sub-contractor, the reason being that M/s Patel Filters Infrastructure was not being able to complete work within the schedule time. To that effect, Minutes of Meetings (referred to as MOU in the FIR) has been signed between the parties and all the signatories of the Minutes of Meetings agreed that the payment of retention amount and hydro-testing will be made by Larsen and Toubro Construction and Mining Machinery, Dhanbad, after completion of construction work. It was further alleged that the Project Manager of Larsen and Toubro Construction and Mining Machinery, Dhanbad, Mr. Dhanesh Kodi gave his assurance that as per the Minutes of Meetings agreement, payment of retention amount and hydro-testing shall be made to M/s M.A. Construction. But after completion of the construction work to the satisfaction, payment of the retention amount and hydro-testing to the tune of Rs.44,30,579/- which has to be paid after completion work was not paid to the informant, in spite of having made several requests by way of letters, e-mail, phone calls. Thereafter, the informant requested M/s Patel Filters Infrastructure for payment of the retention amount, but they denied and told that as per para 3 of Minutes of Meetings, it was agreed that the retention amount has to be paid by Larsen and Toubro Construction and Mining Machinery, Dhanbad. Then, the informant sent a legal notice to M/s Larsen and Toubro Construction and Mining Machinery, Dhanbad through his lawyer for payment of the amount, but instead of paying the money, M/s Larsen and Toubro Construction and Mining Machinery, Dhanbad in its reply dated 13.06.2022 had denied the liability of Rs.44,30,579/- and stated that no such agreement has been made. On the contrary, M/s Larsen and Toubro Construction and Mining Machinery, Dhanbad has threatened legal action against opposite party no.2 company. Again, a reminder notice dated 01.08.2022 was sent to M/s Larsen and Toubro Construction and Mining Machinery, Dhanbad giving 7 days more time, but there was no reply. Based upon which allegation of commission of an offence under Section 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Bankmore (Bhuli-OP) P.S. Case No.308 of 2022 was registered on 30.11.2022 against the petitioners.
4. Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are office bearers of M/s Larsen and Toubro Construction and Mining Machinery, Dhanbad. He submits that the said company is engaged in the business of construction and mining, machinery, heavy engineering, hydraulic, hydro carbon, metallurgical and material handling, power, power development projects, rubber processing machinery, ship building and valves. He submits that the said company was awarded a contract for the construction of a Water Treatment Plant at Sindri and Jamadoba by the Government of Jharkhand. The said construction work was handed over to M/s. Patel Filter Infrastructure vide work order dated 16.12.2011, which
Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The main legal point established is that criminal courts should not be used to settle civil disputes, and a breach of contract does not automatically lead to criminal prosecution for cheating.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that fraudulent and dishonest acts at the inception are essential for constituting cheating under Section 420 IPC.
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....
Allegations of dishonest misappropriation and breach of trust in contractual agreements can sustain criminal liability under IPC, irrespective of the civil nature of disputes.
Direction for Police investigation – Every breach of contract cannot be subject matter of criminal case unless there is deception played at very inception.
The court emphasized that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or representation is essential.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dispute primarily civil in nature, such as non-payment under a contractual liability, does not necessarily constitute an offence under Secti....
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.