Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 86631
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
RAMASUNDARAM CHARUVILAPUTHENVEEDU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 482 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: KUM.S.KRISHNA, SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
For the Respondents: SRI.A.SANIL KUMAR
A breach of contract does not constitute criminal offence unless fraudulent intention is proven; criminal prosecution should not be misused for civil disputes.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 354, 294(b), 506(i) - Kerala Police Act - Sections 118(d), 120(o) - Criminal Miscellaneous case filed to quash proceedings for alleged offences of cheating and harassment based on a civil dispute regarding unpaid maintenance work - The court elucidated that a mere breach of contract does not equate to criminal prosecution without demonstrating fraudulent intent - Court found no basic ingredients of the alleged offences against the petitioner, affirming the nature of the allegations being civil rather than criminal in nature. (Paras 1 to 19).
(B) The Court stressed the importance of distinguishing between criminal and civil liabilities, indicating that if the allegations are found credible, the respondent may pursue civil remedies. (Paras 18, 19)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal proceedings initiated from civil disputes require clear evidence of criminal intent. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations without substantive proof do not merit continuation of criminal proceedings. (Para 3 , 5 , 14 , 18) |
| 3. the court underscores the need to differentiate between civil obligations and criminal acts. (Para 6 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal definitions and case law guide the distinctions for prosecution under ipc for offences. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 5. final judgment quashes ongoing criminal proceedings due to lack of merit. (Para 19) |
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No. 161/2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta arising from Crime No. 1899/2014 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. The above case is charge-sheeted against the petitioner alelging offences punishable under Secs. 420, 354, 294(b), 506(i) of the IPC and under Secs.118(d) and 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act (for short 'KP Act').
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner with the intention to defraud and misappropriate money from the 2nd respondent entered into a contract with the 2nd respondent agreeing to do maintenance work in the house of the 2nd respondent, received payment to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.02.2014 and later, refused to abide by the terms of the contract and complete the maintenance work. The 2nd respondent also alleged that the petitioner had threatened and harassed the 2nd respondent of dire consequences, when the 2nd respondent tried to contact the petitioner regarding the pendency of maintenance work. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. Annexure-A1 is the first information statement and Annexure-A2 is the final report. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I also heard the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
5. This Court also perused Annexure-A1 First Information Statement. Whether the same attract the offence alleged against the petitioner is the point to be decided in this case. The first offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sec.420 IPC . The ingredients of Sec.420 is considered by the Apex Court in Subbiah C @ Kadambur Jayaraj v Superintendent of Police [2024 KHC 6288].
40. “The complainant has clearly alleged that the accused caused him monetary loss because the appropriate share of profits was not passed on to him after some plots from the entire chunk had been sold. This Court in the case of Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 201 observed that: - "
A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up the promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings".
41. Similarly, in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B. , 2022 (7) SCC 124 , this Court while tracing the earlier decisions on the subject observed as under:
24. This Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., 2000 (2) SCC 636) observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.
25. This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This Court in Indian Oil Corpn. (Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., 2006 (6) SCC 736) noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders / creditors. The Court further observed that : (Indian Oil Corpn case (Indian Oil Corpn v. NEPC India Ltd., 2006 (6) SCC 736) "
13. ... Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not inv
