Criminal proceedings should be quashed when the dispute is essentially civil or commercial in nature and lacks evidence of fraudulent intent at the inception of the transaction, as a mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.0409/2017 dated 26.09.2017 registered at Police Station concerned, District Durg, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which culminated into filing of charge-sheet dated 13.06.2018 and registration of Criminal Case No.31476/2018 (State vs. Vimal Jain & Anr.) pending before the learned Court below.

******* The petitioners seek to assail the very registration of the aforesaid FIR as well as the consequential proceedings on the ground that the dispute, as reflected from the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, pertains to alleged non-delivery of a Toyota Innova vehicle despite payment of booking amount and is essentially civil in nature arising out of a contractual transaction, which has already been subject matter of proceedings before the Consumer Forum and other fora. It is contended that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, namely fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception and entrustment coupled with misappropriation, are conspicuously absent; similarly, no prima facie case is made out under Sections 294 or 506 IPC. According to the petitioners, the continuation of criminal prosecution in the backdrop of parallel civil/consumer proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of Court and law, warranting exercise of inherent powers of this Court in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2017) 13 SCC 369 and other binding precedents governing the scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC.

2. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that, the petitioner No.2 is stated to be the Director of M/s Vicon Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., which had entered into a dealership agreement with Toyota Kirloskar Motors, renewed from time to time. Petitioner No.1 is the father of petitioner No.2 and, according to the petitioners, has no direct role in the affairs of the said company.

******* Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that he had deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards booking of a Toyota Innova vehicle and was assured delivery within six months. It is alleged that despite lapse of the stipulated period, the vehicle was not delivered and, upon inquiry, respondent No.2 came to know that the dealership of the petitioners had been cancelled. He further alleged that upon demanding refund of the booking amount, he was subjected to abusive language and threats. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No.0409/2017 dated 26.09.2017 came to be registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet dated 13.06.2018 was filed, and Criminal Case No.31476/2018 (State vs. Vimal Jain & Anr.) is pending before the competent Court at Durg.

******* Apart from initiating criminal proceedings, respondent No.2 also filed Consumer Complaint No. CC/17/357 before the District Consumer Forum, Raipur, seeking compensation in respect of the same transaction. The complaint was decided ex parte against the petitioners by award d