The court reiterated that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is established, quashing the FIR due to lack of supporting evidence for the allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Golmei Gaiphulshillu, J.

[1] Heard Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Samarjit Hawaibam, learned PP appearing for the State and Mr. H. Kenajit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 at length.

[2] The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality, correctness and propriety in registration of the FIR with a prayer for quashing and setting aside of FIR No. 97(7)2016 of City Police Station, Imphal, Manipur dated 06.07.2016 registered by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner under Sections 34 r/w 406, 420 and 506 of IPC even though no offence was made out.

For easy reference and for convenience, the above mentioned Sections are extracted herein below:

“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.

420. Cheating and dishonesty inducing delivery of property -

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation –

Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. - And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

[3] The case of the petitioner is that he was running a retail medicine shop namely, “M/S Kanchan Medical Store” at Thangal Bazar. But, his father was diagnosed to be suffering from Parkinson aliment. Due to his father’s illness, his family has shifted to Jaipur and the petitioner has been settling between Imphal and Jaipur and decided to wound up all his business interest at Imphal and shift base to Jaipur except the share portion of the property including the residential building jointly recorded in the name of his father and his 2 (two) brothers exclusively belonging to them. Further due to his father’s illness, the petitioner was managing the affairs of the family.

[4] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 3, who is the complainant in FIR Case no. 97(7) 2016 City P.S. u/s 406/420/506/34 of IPC, is a close friend of the petitioner and also running a retail outlet of ‘Peter England’. He, further, submits that the respondent No. 3 proposed to the petitioner to buy his fa