A juvenile cannot claim exemption from the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the unpaid seller has a lien over the property if the buyer fails to pay the consideration amount.

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 463/2017 registered by Police Station Aron District Guna for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application, in short, are that the complainant Manish Sharma lodged a report that the applicant had entered into an agreement to purchase one “10 wheeler truck” bearing registration No. RJ11-GA-6251 for a consideration amount of Rs.13,75,000/-, out of which Rs.5,85,000/- was paid to the complainant and the remaining amount of Rs.7,90,000/- was to be paid to Magma Finance Company by the applicant. The said agreement was executed in the presence of one Kalla Yadav and the present applicant took possession of the truck. Thereafter, the applicant neither paid the remaining amount to the Magma Finance Company nor has paid to the complainant. Even the truck was not got ensured and the fitness certificate was also not obtained and the applicant in an illegal manner is plying the truck. The complainant has sent various notices to the applicant to deposit the financed amount but he has not returned so. Thus, he has committed criminal breach of trust.

3. Challenging the FIR lodged by the complainant, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the agreement is alleged to have been executed on 07.07.2014 and on that day, the applicant was minor. It is well established principle of law that any contract executed by a minor is void and on the basis of void contract, the applicant cannot be prosecuted. The applicant has also made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Guna in this regard on 26.12.2017. However, no steps have been taken.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that so far as the agreement by a minor is concerned, the criminal law does not grant any exemption to a minor in this regard. If the accused has misappropriated the funds or has committed a criminal breach of trust, then he can be prosecuted. The accused cannot claim any exemption from the criminal law.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Counsel for the applicant has made a singular submission that as the applicant was juvenile on the date of execution of the contract, therefore, the contract by a minor is void. Thus, the applicant cannot be prosecuted on the basis of a void agreement.

7. It is the case of the complainant that the applicant had entered into an agreement to purchase the truck for a consideration amount of Rs.13,75,000/-, out of which Rs.5,85,000/- was paid and the applicant had agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.7,90,000/- to Magma Finance Company. It is alleged that the applicant has neither paid the said amount to the Magma Finance Company nor has paid the said amount to the present complainant, although the possession of the truck was taken by the applicant on the date of agreement itself. Section 406 of IPC read as under:-

“406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

8. Criminal breach of trust has been defined under Section 405 of IPC, which reads as under:-

“405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.

Explanation 1.—A person, being an employer 3[of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not] who d