IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Sudhir Kumar Goyal and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr.M.P. No.2534 of 2021
Decided On : 10-04-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Allegations of cheating under Section 418 of IPC - No allegations of dishonesty or inducement against petitioners - Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law - Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 2, 4, 9, 10)
(B) Mens Rea - Essential ingredient of offence under Section 418 IPC - Accused must have knowledge of wrongful loss caused to the person cheated. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, owners of coal, were accused of diverting coal to a different factory instead of their own, leading to criminal charges under IPC and Mines Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found no basis for the allegations of cheating against the petitioners, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Issues: Whether the allegations constituted an offence under Section 418 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without mens rea and the essential elements of cheating being present, the proceedings were an abuse of process.
Result: Criminal proceedings quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No.265 of 2021 involving the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (JMPIMTS) and the said case is now pending before the learned J.M-1st Class, Dhanbad.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners are the owners of the coal which was to be transported to their own hard coke factory in the name and style of M/s Tirumala Balaji Hard Coke Industries Rukni, Purulia, West Bengal but the said hard coke instead of being taken to the factory of the petitioners, was taken to the brick kiln of Shree Ram Hard Coke and Allied Industries and was found in the premises of the said industry. Police after investigation of the case submitted charge-sheet alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 418/120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr.M.P. No.49 of 2008 dated 02.04.2009, wherein, in a similar case, the co-ordinate Bench held that the allegations made in the First Information Report do not constitute the offence and therefore, the proceeding against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Agrawal vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.1628 of 2013 dated 20.07.2016 , wherein it was observed by the coordinate bench that the deviation by the truck carrying coal to a place other than its destination would not constitute any offence, hence, in that case the entire criminal proceeding was quashed. The same effect is the case of Dhiraj Kumar Swarnkar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (Cr) No.382 of 2015 dated 11.11.2016 as also in the case of Manendra Kumar Singh @ Muna Kumar Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No.483 of 2015 dated 30.08.2017 wherein the co-ordinate Bench relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abhas Kumar Acksaria & Others Vs. The State of Bihar & Others (Cr.W.J.C. No.33 of 1991[R]), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that “deviation” by a truck carrying coal to a place other than its destination cannot be a criminal offence either under the Indian Penal Code or under the Essential Commodities Act. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No.265 of 2021 which is now pending before the learned J.M-1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No.265 of 2021 which is now pending before the learned J.M-1st Class, Dhanbad and submits that since the petitioners were under the obligation to take the coal to their factory at Purulia only, hence, by taking the coal to the factory at Shree Ram Hard Coke and Allied Industries, is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 418 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submis
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. & Others
The absence of mens rea and essential elements of cheating under Section 418 IPC leads to quashing of criminal proceedings as an abuse of process.
Route diversion of coal trucks does not constitute a criminal offence under IPC or related acts without evidence of criminal intent.
High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot quash proceedings by appreciating accused's defence, veracity of photocopy evidence or conducting mini-trial; for Section 414 IPC, thief's conviction not requ....
Cognizance of mining offences requires a written complaint from an authorized person; without it, proceedings are unsustainable.
Interpretation of vaioud relevant provisions of Code under Chapter XIV and of principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to exercise of extraordinary power under Art....
Cheating allegations in commercial transactions require clear intent to deceive; mere non-payment of goods does not constitute a criminal offense.
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless there is an intention to deceive from the inception of the agreement; allegations of insult and intimidation must meet specific legal thre....
Criminal conspiracy – Quash of Criminal Proceedings - Exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to accused, would save precious court t....
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.