IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1589 of 2023

1. YD Sales Enterprises LLP having its office at Bhilwara, P.O. & P.S. Bhilwara, District –Bhilwara (Rajasthan), represented through its Partner namely Yashwardhan Choudhary, aged about 26 years, son of Ashish Kumar Choudhary, resident of C-186, Sohan Villa, Kashipuri, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, P.O. & P.S. Bhilwara, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

2. Yashwardhan Choudhary, aged about 26 years, son of Ashish Kumar Choudhary, resident of C-186, Sohan Villa, Kashipuri, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, P.O. & P.S. Bhilwara, District –Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

.... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY…..

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate : Ms. Sugandha Jaiswal Poddar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

(Through V.C.)

…..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Gonda P.S. Case No. 15 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 –YD Sales Enterprises LLP and confines his prayer on behalf of the petitioner no.2 – Yashwardhan Choudhary only.

4. Accordingly, the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition on behalf of the petitioner no.1 –YD Sales Enterprises LLP is rejected as not pressed.

5. So far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, the allegation against the petitioner no.2 is that the petitioner no.2 took an advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the informant with a promise to give the franchisee of Brandwala Showroom in Ranchi and to supply 100% original branded clothes and foot wear with a margin of 50% to the informant. The informant took the showroom by paying the advance amount of Rs.5,40,000/- and invested Rs.750,000/- in the interior of the said showroom but when the informant went to procure the clothes and footwear from the petitioner, he found that some duplicate stock like the ones sold in footpath and some old stock of some brands were available with the petitioner but the petitioner refused to return the advance taken by him.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690, para-49 of which reads as under:-

“49. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passed to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it.” (Emphasis supplied)

Submits that therein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that once the property in the goods passed to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of goods is flawed to the core and there can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 next relied upon the Judgmen