Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1417
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Md. Nazimuddin, S/o. Md. Mohiuddin - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Cr. M.P. No. 333 of 2022
Decided On : 17-04-2023
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jitesh Kumar.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Addl. P.P.
IMPORTANT POINT
A mere breach of contract does not necessarily amount to cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Jurisdiction - Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 504, 506 - [IPC 420, IPC 504, IPC 506] - The court discussed the legal provisions of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and emphasized that a mere breach of contract does not necessarily amount to cheating. The court highlighted the requirement of dishonest and fraudulent intention at the time of inducing the complainant to enter into the contract, as well as the disapproval of imparting criminal color to a civil dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner supplied inferior quality ply wood to the complainant. The petitioner argued that the dispute was civil in nature and lacked dishonest or fraudulent intention. The complainant opposed the quashing of the criminal proceeding, alleging the commission of the offense by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was essentially a civil matter and that the criminal proceeding amounted to an abuse of the court. It emphasized that a mere breach of contract does not necessarily amount to cheating under Section 420 of the IPC.
Issues: Whether the dispute was civil in nature and liable to be quashed, and whether the criminal proceeding amounted to an abuse of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a mere breach of contract does not necessarily amount to cheating under Section 420 of the IPC, and disapproved of imparting criminal color to a civil dispute.
Final Decision: The entire Complaint Case No.2391 of 2018 and the order taking cognizance were quashed and set aside. The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed, and any interim order passed in the case was vacated.
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 for quashing the entire Complaint Case No.2391 of 2018 and order taking cognizance dated 29.11.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi passed in Complaint Case No.2391 of 2018 under Sections 420, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner supplied inferior quality of ply wood to the opposite party no.2-complainant.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly, the petitioner has supplied the ply wood; there is no allegation that the petitioner had any dishonest or fraudulent intention and the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. In support of its case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepak Gaba & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 423, paragraph nos.28, 30, 32 and 34 of which reads as under:-
“28. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the assertions made in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence led by Respondent 2 complainant fail to establish the conditions and incidence of the penal liability set out under Sections 405, 420 and 471 IPC, as the allegations pertain to alleged breach of contractual obligations. Pertinently, this Court, in a number of cases, has noticed attempts made by parties to invoke jurisdiction of criminal courts, by filing vexatious criminal complaints by camouflaging allegations which were ex facie outrageous or pure civil claims. These attempts are not to be entertained and should be dismissed at the threshold. To avoid prolixity, we would only like to refer to the judgment of this Court in Thermax Ltd. v. K.M. Johny, (2011) 13 SCC 412 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 650, as it refers to earlier case laws in copious detail.
30. Even though at the stage of issuing process to the accused the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set the criminal proceedings into motion. The requirement of Section 204 of the Code is that the Magistrate should carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record. He/She may even put questions to complainant and his/her witnesses when examined under Section 200 of the Code to elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations. Only upon being satisfied that there is sufficient ground for summoning the accused to stand the trial, summons should be issued. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Adventz Investments & Holdings Ltd., (2019) 16 SCC 610 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 828 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 713; Pepsi Foods Ltd. [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400]; and Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124.]
32. While summoning an accused who resides outside the jurisdiction of court, in terms of the insertion made to Section 202 of the Code by Act 25 of 2005, it is obligatory upon the Magistrate to inquire into the case himself or direct investigation be made by a police officer or such other officer for finding out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. [Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 479; Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar, (2017) 3 SCC 528 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 192; and Birla Corpn. Ltd. [Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Adventz Investments & Holdings Ltd., (2019) 16 SCC 610 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 828 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 713.] In the present case, the said exercise has not been undertaken.
34. We must also observe that the High Court, while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, failed to take due notice that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be initiated when it is manifest that these proceedings have been initiated with ulterior motive of wreaking veng
