Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 13633
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. DOSHI, J
TEJASKUMAR DASHRATHBHAI PATEL & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 3263 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR HARESH A PATEL, MR JB DASTOOR
For the Respondents: ADITYA A GUPTA, MOHIT A GUPTA, MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP
The mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence unless there is clear evidence of fraudulent intent from the start.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - The petitioners sought to quash FIR for alleged offences under IPC related to business dealings - Legal principles established show that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence unless fraudulent intent is apparent from inception, as evidenced in relevant case law. (Paras 7, 7.2)
(B) FIR allegations do not disclose essential criminal ingredients under IPC Sections 406 and 420 as no dishonest intention at inception is apparent - Allegations under Sections 504 and 506(2) are vague without specifics - Nature of dispute is more civil than criminal.
Facts of the case:
Dispute arose from commercial dealings and non-payment of conversion charges, leading to an FIR being filed alleging offences under IPC sections. The petitioners contended that the FIR was filed to evade legal dues.
Findings of Court:
Dispute characterized as civil, quashing FIR due to absence of prima facie criminal case - Court emphasized contractual nature of the relationship.
Issues: Whether allegations constituting the FIR disclose a criminal nature, or merely civil disputes?
Ratio Decidendi: Court held that allegations did not meet essential elements of the alleged offenses, highlighting the necessity for fraudulent intent and specific details in accusations.
Result: FIR quashed and proceedings set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to quash fir made under sec 482. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual basis of the complaint regarding business dealings. (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties regarding the merits of the fir. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's observations on the legal nature of the dispute. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I – 250 of 2019 registered with Salabatpura Police Station, Surat City as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners herein.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1. The Respondent No. 2, Manager of M/s Reliable Polyester Pvt. Ltd., Surat, was in business relations with the petitioners for weaving of Polyester beams under a verbal job- work arrangement. In pursuance thereof, large quantities of unprocessed yarn and fabrics were supplied by the respondent, which were duly received and acknowledged through delivery challans, and the petitioners raised debit memos for the conversion cost amounting to ₹27,47,538/-. The records of M/s Raiba Textiles, M/s Jay Laxmi Textiles and M/s Sai Laxmi Fabrics, as also statements of goods received and dispatched, establish the transactions, delivery of fabrics, and the outstanding dues. The petitioners further lodged complaints before the Commissioner of Police as well as the Pandesara Police Station, alleging non-payment of conversion charges, machine downtime, and godown rent, thereby asserting that an amount of ₹27,47,538/- remained legally due and payable by the respondent.
2.2. On the other hand, the respondent instituted FIR being C.R. No. I-250/2019 with Salabatpura Police Station, Surat City, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506(2), 120B and 114 of the IPC against the petitioners. Apprehending arrest, the petitioners preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 3464 of 2019 before the learned Sessions Court, Surat, under Section 438 Cr.P.C ., and were granted anticipatory bail. It is the consistent case of the petitioners that the impugned FIR has been falsely engineered by the respondent as a counterblast to evade the discharge of admitted legal dues arising out of the job-work agreement, in support whereof contemporaneous ledger accounts, challans, test reports and police complaints have been placed on record.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. It is urged that the dispute, at best, partakes the character of a civil transaction relating to business dealings, which has been given a criminal colour to exert pressure upon the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no material on record to show any dishonest or fraudulent intention ab initio so as to attract Section 420 IPC. Similarly, there is no entrustment or misappropriation as required under Section 406 IPC. With regard to Sections 504 and 506(2) IPC, it is submitted that the allegations are vague, omnibus, and bereft of particulars as to date, time or place of occurrence.
3.1 Mainly upon above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit to allow this petition.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for the complainant would vehemently oppose the petition and submit that the allegations clearly make out a prima facie case against the petitioners under all the invoked provisions. It is contended that the petitioner had induced the complainant with dishonest intention, obtained valuable consideration, and thereafter failed to discharge the liability, thereby squarely attracting Section 420 IPC. It is further submitted that the complainant had entrusted property/valuable s
