IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Agarwal, J.
Chevron Inc. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 12601 of 2021 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 3.3.2025
Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 405, 415 and 420 -- quashing of criminal case on ground that a purely civil dispute has been converted into a criminal case -- ingredients of complaint reveal that smart dustbins were supplied -- there was some problem in their operation -- some machine parts were taken by company engineer for replacement -- held -- averments in complaint do not constitute ingredients necessary for offences alleged -- mere malfunctioning of machine either due to mishandling or improper installation or some defect in parts, cannot form ingredients of S. 405 or 415 of IPC -- there is no element of inducement or cheating -- continuing with complaint will cause travesty of justice -- complaint quashed. (2014) 10 SCC 663, (2006) 6 SCC 736, (2000) 2 SCC 636, (2014) 13 SCC 553, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, (2005) 10 SCC 228 and (2019) 16 SCC 739 followed. (2019) 14 SCC 568, (2020) 14 SCC 552, (2009) 1 SCC 516, (2019) 2 SCC 401, (2022) 7 SCC 124, (2022) 14 SCC 572, (2023) 5 SCC 360, 2024 SCC Online SC 82, (2023) 6 SCC 109, (1998) 5 SCC 749, (2017) 9 SCC 413, (2021) 5 SCC 524, 2025 SCC Online SC 17, (2008) 8 SCC 536, (2008) 5 SCC 765, (2009) 5 SCC 528 and 2005 SCC Online Del. 1392 referred to. [Paras 16 to 19
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226@227 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 405] 415 rFkk 420 && nkafMd çdj.k dk bl vk/kkj ij vfHk[kaMu fd fo'kq) flfoy fookn dks nkafMd çdj.k esa laifjofrZr fd;k x;k gS && ifjokn ds la?kVdksa ls çdV fd LekVZ dwM+snku çnk; fd, x, Fks && muds dk;Z djus esa dqN leL;k Fkh && daiuh dk ;a=h e'khu ds dqN Hkkx cnyus ds fy, ys x;k && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && ifjokn ds çdFkuksa ls vfHkdfFkr vijk/kksa ds fy, vko';d la?kVd xfBr ugha gksrs && xyr çdkj ls pyk, tkus ;k vuqfpr çdkj ls yxk, tkus ;k fQj Hkkxksa esa dqN =qfV ds dkj.k e'khu ds Bhd ls ugha pyus ek= ls naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 405 ;k 415 ds la?kVd xfBr ugha gks ldrs && mRçsj.kk ;k Ny dk dksbZ rRo ugha && ifjokn tkjh j[kus ls U;k; dk migkl gksxk && ifjokn vfHk[kafMrA ¼2014½ 10 ,llhlh 663] ¼2006½ 6 ,llhlh 736] ¼2000½2 ,llhlh 636] ¼2014½13 ,llhlh 553] 1992 lIyh- ¼1½ ,llhlh 335] ¼2005½ 10 ,llhlh 228 rFkk ¼2019½16 ,llhlh 739 vuqlfjrA ¼2019½14 ,llhlh 568] ¼2020½14 ,llhlh 552] ¼2009½1 ,llhlh 516] ¼2019½2 ,llhlh 401] ¼2022½7 ,llhlh 124] ¼2022½14 ,llhlh 572] ¼2023½ 5 ,llhlh 360] 2024 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 82] ¼2023½ 6 ,llhlh 109] ¼1998½ 5 ,llhlh 749] ¼2017½ 9 ,llhlh 413] ¼2021½ 5 ,llhlh 524] 2025 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 17] ¼2008½ 8 ,llhlh 536] ¼2008½5 ,llhlh 765] ¼2009½ 5 ,llhlh 528 rFkk 2005 ,llhlh v‚uykbu fnYyh 1392 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 16 ls 19
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed by the complainant being aggrieved of the order dated 9.2.2021 whereby he is directed to appear on 9.4.2021 before learned JMFC, Jabalpur in complaint case No.558/2019 on the ground that a purely civil dispute has been converted by the respondent No.4 into a criminal case with ulterior motive and, therefore, a prayer is made to set aside the criminal case instituted by the respondent with a further prayer to discharge the petitioner.
2. Brief facts, leading to the present case, are that the petitioner is a Firm based at Mumbai, Maharashtra. They had forwarded their offer vide quotation against the requirement for supply of 100 number of smart dustbin with data sheet along with terms and conditions to the respondent No.4.
3. It is submitted that the said smart dustbins are manufactured by one of the Chinese company and the petitioner firm is importer of the same. A promise was made by respondent No.4 to purchase 100 smart dustbins in three lots. In the first lot, purchase order for only 31 dustbins was given after which 21 dustbins were delivered and 10 were to be delivered. Prior to the transaction taking place, the petitioner had sent one sample smart dustbin and being satisfied with the functioning of the smart dustbin, purchase order was released. It is submitted that another set of 10 dustbins was also delivered to the respondent No.4 but the respondent No.4 without following the guidelines, started functioning of the dustbins through local electrician despite the fact that the software application which operates a smart dustbin is customised and can be started by Chinese company only. It is further submitted that since unauthorised operation was initiated by technician of respondent No.4, with a view to sort out the dispute, the petitioner deputed his technician who on his visit observed that smart dustbins were kept in bad condition and installation was done by local electrician messing up the wiring which led non-working of smart dustbin. Thus, it is alleged that nonfunctioning of the smart dustbins occurred due to negligence of the respondent No.4. It is further submitted that since supply was to be made in first lot of 35 numbers therefore, only after completing the placement of purchase order of 35 number of smart dustbins and completion of its supply, the principal vender with their technician were to visit the site to install the same. Since the procedure for installation of smart dustbin was not followed by the respondent No.4 and that resulted in some issues in regard to payment of balance amount, the petitioner had approached the Maharashtra State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Mumbai by lodging a complaint as contained in Annexure P-1.
4. It is submitted that the complaint is pending in terms of the provisions contained in the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, as was filed on 2.4.2019, when the respondent No.4 issued a notice on 4.4.2019, to the petitioner demanding compensation for loss suffered by respondent No.4. This complaint was properly replied to by the petitioner through his counsel on 19.4.2019 vide Annexure P-5. Then a civil suit for recovery was filed by the respondent No.4 on 2.7.2019 before the 11th Civil Judge, Class I, Jabalpur. Copy of the plaint is annexed as Annexure P-6, which registered the case as RCS A 804/2019 which is pending adjudication before the trial Court. When the petitioner had received notice for appearance, then they had appeared and filed an application under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC on 19.3.2020, stating that since a dispute is already pending before Maharashtra State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Mumbai, therefore, plaint is not maintainable and thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. During pendency of the suit RCS A No.840/2019 before the Civil Court at Jabalpur, a notice was issued on 10.6.2021 for appearance of the petitioner on 9.4.2021. A copy of this notice issued
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for disputes that are purely civil, especially where the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not met.
The judgment established that not every breach of contract amounts to a criminal offence and emphasized the importance of the presence of deception and dishonesty at the inception of a transaction to....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for dishonest intention and fraudulent inducement in establishing the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The judgment also....
Non-performance of contractual obligations does not constitute criminal cheating without evidence of fraudulent intent; disputes of civil nature should be resolved through civil remedies.
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for mere breach of contract; allegations must disclose a criminal offence to justify prosecution.
Dishonest or fraudulent intention must be present at the inception of a transaction to establish offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust; mere breach of contract does not constitute a crimi....
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.