The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of fraudulent or dishonest intention for the offence of cheating and the elements of criminal breach of trust, and the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences.

S.C. Sinho, J.

1. The applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of Complaint Case No. 274/2010 passed by JMFC, Narsinghpur whereby the cognizance under Sections 406, 403, 418, 420, 34 of IPC is taken against them vide impugned order dated 5-2-2010.

2. The Respondent/complainant Yograj Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter shall be referred as YIPL) filed a complaint case against applicant Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. (hereinafter shall be referred as 'SSY') a multinational company before the Court of JMFC, Narsinghpur under Sections 406, 403, 418, 420, 34 of IPC. It is alleged in the complaint that National Highway Authority of India, New Delhi (hereinafter shall be referred as 'NHAI') had awarded a contract for the National Highway Section II Project, (Package Four Laining of Jhansi-Lakhnadon Section KM 297 to KM 351 of NH 26) in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The total contract amount for aforesaid project was more than Rs. 750 crores. The accused No. 1 SSY approached the complainant YIPL and persuaded it to take the part of the project as a sub-contractor for Rs. 2,19,01,16,805/- and enticed the Respondent/complainant by stating that it will give 92% of all payment for the work done and will retain only 8% as profit and incidental charges. As per written agreement dated 13-8-06 (Exh. P-2) the work order for the aforesaid project was granted by the accused SSY to the Respondent No. 1/complainant YIPL, on the terms settled as per aforesaid agreement. Subsequent to execution of the agreement and during work, some dispute between the parties arisen.

3. The main allegations levelled by the complainant/Respondent YIPL against the accused SSY that it was necessary for accused to obtain prior permission of NHAI and the Respondent YIPL was kept in dark and was informed that permission has already been obtained, therefore, he performed the work, it appears that employing of an agency under sub-contract was objected by NHAI and warned SSY/accused to discontinue the subcontract otherwise main contract was threatened to be terminated, thus fraud/ cheating was committed with the Respondent/complainant YIPL who performed the work of many corers and Petitioner had not made payment of Rs. 166 crores to him and made false promises with ulterior motive to grab the plants, machinery and equipments of YIPL under the threat of invocation of bank guarantee worth Rs. 11.5 crores. Thereafter the agreement of subcontract was terminated on 29-12-2009 and relying on the Clause 27 Respondent moved an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for injunction restraining the Bank from making the payment of the amount covered under bank guarantee and Trial Court after recording the statement of complainant registered the complaint case against the applicant under Sections 406, 403, 418, 420, 34, IPC and summons were issued to the applicant.

4. Shri Jaiswal, Senior Advocate with Shri Manoj Kushwaha, Advocate for applicant submitted that allegations with respect to cheating and criminal breach of trust are specifically denied, it is mentioned in the agreement (Exh. P-2) itself that the main contract has been given by NHAI of which the Respondent/complainant is well aware and responsibility to corRespondent with the NHAI was that applicant/SS Y will sought permission from NHAI for approving the sub-contract which was not approved by the NHAI as apparent from the correspondence due to non-performance of the work in stipulated period by YIPL, thus applicant has not committed any cheating/fraud etc. with Respondent.

5. Shri Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on Veer Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar AIR 2007 SCW 4816 and submitted that there was no intention of the applicant to cheat the Respondent/complainant from very inception and even on the basis of statement of complainant Yogendra Singh, no offence under Sections 403, 406, 418, 420, 34 of IPC is m