IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 10787 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1579 of 2020 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1636 of 2021 ==========================================================

SATYANARAYAN LAXMANDAS RANAWAT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR RUSHABH R SHAH(5314) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR CHINTAN DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 22/09/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of these petitions 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 - 141 of 2019 registered with Kagdapith Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners herein.

2. Seeking quashment of the FIR, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that on plain reading of FIR, it fails to disclose any essential ingredient of criminal breach of trust or cheating defined in section 405 and 415 of IPC having punishment defined in section 406 and 420 of IPC. He would submit that there is delay in filing the FIR and no proper explanation are coming forward. He would further submit that civil dispute has been given colour of criminality.

3.1 Upon such submission, learned advocate for the petitioners requests to allow the petitions.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Rushabh Shah for the private respondent would submit that petitioner Satyanarayan is the agent of other two petitioners and through which, goods are sold on 60 days’ credit. He would further submit that after filing of the FIR, petitioner Satyanarayan has also collected amount from the purchasers, but did not remit it to the complainant and therefore, it can be said that he has actually committed the offence. He would further submit that thus, prima facie, it is established that the petitioners in connivance with each other have committed the offence. Upon such submission, he prays to dismiss the petitions.

5. Learned APP submits that it is case where the petitioners has cheated the complainant and therefore, offence u/s 406 and 420 are made out. Therefore, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.

6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. Noticeably, the complainant has also filed criminal complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act for return of the cheque, which was given to the complainant and the same is pending before the competent Court. Further, it is a case of recovery of money and for that suit for recovery could have been filed rather pressed into motion criminal machinery. He would further submit that there is no entrustment in the present case and thus, bare reading of the pleadings of the FIR, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioners. Section 405 and 420 being relevant provision of law defines criminal breach of trust and cheating 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”. 420. Cheating and dishonestly 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 a