Criminal breach of trust requires proven entrustment, which is absent in standard sale transactions unless a specific limited purpose exists. Conversely, criminal cheating is established if conduct shows a dishonest intention or deceptive plan from the inception of the transaction to deprive the counterparty of their dues.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present Revision Application has been preferred by the petitioners, challenging the Order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anjar–Kutch in Criminal Case No. 584 of 2012 vide Order dated 08.02.2016, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application below Exh.17 seeking discharge. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said Order and further by the subsequent Order dated 02.03.2023 passed below Exh.112/C framing the charge against them. Hence, the present Revision Application is preferred before this Court.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present Revision Application are that the complainant, Anilbhai s/o Vashrambhai Savadiya, lodged a complaint against the present petitioners–accused alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners had placed two purchase Orders dated 14.11.2011 and 21.11.2011 with the complainant’s company for purchase of 293 metric tonnes of TMT steel Bars, against which they had given ten cheques amounting to Rs.1.19 Crores. Accordingly, the complainant had delivered the goods on various dates in November 2011. Thereafter, the cheques given by the petitioners were presented in the Bank by the complainant, however all the ten cheques had returned dishonoured with the endorsement ‘insufficient balance’. It was further alleged that since the petitioners-accused had not paid the amount of cheques and committed cheating and breach of trust, the complainant had filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Subsequently, a complaint/FIR came to be registered before the Anjar Police Station vide I-C.R. No. 8 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out and, upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet on 03.05.2012 before the learned trial Court, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.584 of 2012. In the said criminal case, the present petitioners preferred an application below Exh.17 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anjar–Kutch, vide Order dated 08.02.2016, rejected the said discharge application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Order rejecting the discharge application, the present Revision Application is preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court.

3. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid Criminal Revision Application was initially rejected by this Court vide Order dated 24.03.2021, mainly on the ground that the Order rejecting the discharge application was an Interlocutory Order as per Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and therefore the revision application was held to be not maintainable. The said Order of rejection was thereafter challenged by the present petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex Court of India by preferring Criminal Appeal No.5430 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5300 of 2021). The Hon’ble Apex Court, vide Order dated 18.12.2024, was pleased to set aside the Order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.213 of 2016 and directed that the said revision application be restored and listed before the appropriate Bench. It is further submitted that during the pendency of