Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Arun Sharma and Another - Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
APPLICATION U/S 482 NO. 9570 OF 2024.
Decided On : 05-07-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Applicants : Kunwar Ajay Singh, P.K. Singh
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Ritvik Upadhya

Criminal liability under IPC sections requires clear evidence of entrustment and dishonest intention, which were absent in this case.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 204 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 504, and 506 - Summoning order challenged - Applicants claimed no involvement with the firm in question; ingredients of offences not made out even if allegations were true - Court emphasized that criminal courts should not be used to settle civil disputes. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 11, 19)

(B) Criminal Breach of Trust - Essential ingredients include entrustment and dishonest intention - Mere commercial transactions do not constitute entrustment - Court found no evidence of dishonest intention or entrustment in the present case. (Paras 12, 15, 16)

(C) Criminal Intimidation - Sections 504 and 506 IPC - Essential elements of intentional insult and intent to cause alarm were missing in the allegations - Court quashed the impugned order. (Paras 27, 31)

Facts of the case:
The applicants were summoned to face trial under IPC sections based on a complaint regarding a commercial transaction. They argued that the allegations did not constitute criminal offences.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not satisfy the necessary legal requirements for criminal prosecution under the cited sections.

Issues: Whether the allegations constituted criminal offences under Sections 406, 504, and 506 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mere existence of a commercial transaction does not equate to criminal liability, and the essential elements of the alleged offences were not established.

Result: The impugned order was quashed.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri. P.K. Singh and Sri. Arvind Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri. Pratik Kumar, learned counsel for applicants and Sri. V.K.Upadhya, Advocate assisted by Sri. Ritvik Upadhya, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Mithilesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The applicants before this Court are aggrieved by impugned order dated 16.01.2024 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under Section 204 Cr.P.C., whereby they have been summoned to face trial under Sections 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. along with other co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for applicants vehemently submitted that they have no concerned with the firm M/s V & P Enterprises. It was earlier run by father of applicants and any outstanding out of any transaction with said firm, would not devolve upon the applicants. Learned counsels also submitted that contents of complaint, statements of complainant recorded under Section 200 and statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. are even considered to be true, still ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. are not made out.

4. Learned counsels referred judgments passed by Supreme Court in Sarabjit Kaur v. The State of Punjab and Anr., (2023) 5 SCC 360, Vinod Natesan v. State of Kerala and Ors., AIR 2019 SC 296 and Sudhapati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 547 and relevant parts thereof are reproduced hereinafter :-

"1. Sarabjit Kaur v. The State of Punjab and Anr.

A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, it is evident that the respondent No.2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by the respondent No.2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of cess of the Court. process

2. Vinod Natesan v. State of Kerala and Ors.

6. Having heard the appellant as party in person and the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the original accused as well as the State of Kerala and considering the judgment and order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the learned High Court has not committed any error in quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant. Even considering the allegations and averments made in the FIR and the case on behalf of the Appellant, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 are at all satisfied. The dispute between the parties at the most can be said to be the civil dispute and it is tried to be converted into the criminal dispute. Therefore, we are also of the opinion that continuing the criminal proceedings against the Accused will be an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the High Court has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings. Merely because the original accused