Economic offences involving fraudulent deception in commercial transactions differ from civil breaches; High Court declines quashing FIR where prima facie cheating and breach of trust disclosed at investigation stage.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR being Kotwali P.S. Case No. 179 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 316(2), 318(2), 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner with the intention to cheat the informant since the very beginning came to the informant along with co-accused and posed before the informant that he is the authorized seller (Govt. Seller) of Arihant Drug House, Banaras. The petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused person deceived and thereby made the informant believe that PSI India Private Ltd. is the associate company of a world class NGO- Population Service Industrial and with dishonest and fraudulent intention led the informant believe that they are the authorized person to sell medicines to the State of Jharkhand and Bihar and requested the informant to help them in distribution of the medicines. On being so deceived by the fraudulent and dishonest inducement of the petitioner and the co- accused person, the informant parted with Rs. 85,00,000/- by paying the same to the petitioner for purchase of the medicines which could be supplied to the State of Jharkhand and Bihar. The petitioner and the co-accused person led the informant believe that in case the medicines could not be sold, the unsold stock will be taken back by the petitioner and the value of the same will be paid back to the informant. The petitioner on receipt of Rs.85,00,000/- supplied medicines worth Rs.84,99,547/- but later on the informant could know that PSI India Private Ltd. is not the authorized company either by the State of Jharkhand or State of Bihar for supplying of drugs and hence the said medicines supplied by the petitioner to the informant could not be sold. The informant thereafter on 20.04.2024 sent back the entire medicines to the petitioner on the petitioner assuring the informant that the petitioner will return the value of the medicine within 60 days but even after expiry of 60 days, the value of the said medicines was not paid back to the informant. On being so cheated by the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused person and having committed criminal breach of trust, the informant lodged Kotwali P.S. Case No. 179 of 2025 and according to the petitioner, investigation of the case is going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the dispute between the parties is at best a commercial transaction. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been authorized by the PSI India Private Ltd. as a vender and has been authorized to collect payment on behalf of PSI India Private Ltd. and it is the PSI India Private Ltd. which is the main culprit and it has even cheated the petitioner also.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dalip Kaur and Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 paragraph no. 10 of which reads as under:-

“10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of i