Purely commercial disputes involving the supply of goods and disputes over payment/pricing do not constitute criminal breach of trust (S.406/409) or cheating (S.420) unless entrustment is proven or dishonest intention exists from the inception.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in FIR No.479 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st respondent had registered the case based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent for the allegations that the 1st accused, who was appointed as Senior Executive for trading of De-oiled cake at Kaleeswari Refinery Private Limited, Mylapore, Chennai, which is involved in the production of refined edible oil viz., sunflower oil, groundnut oil, palm oil, olive oil, blended oil, coconut oil, de-oiled cake etc., had in collusion with the petitioner / 2nd accused had manipulated account entries and had misappropriated a sum of Rs.24,96,338/- towards the supply of coconut de-oiled cake in her position.

3. According to the petitioner, the dispute is purely on business transactions and the petitioner has no role in misappropriation of funds by the 1st accused. The 2nd respondent / defacto complainant is involved in production of edible oil products. One Mrs. Priya was appointed as Senior Executive for trading of coconut de-oiled cake in the company of the defacto complainant. The petitioner is a Veterinary Doctor carrying on feed business in the name and style of “Sri Power Feeds”. While being so, the petitioner came to know that the defacto complainant’s company for the purchase of coconut de-oiled cake and contacted the said company through the Senior Executive Mrs. Priya. As such, the petitioner also contacted the Senior Executive of said company and carried the purchase of coconut de-oiled cake for his Sri Power Feeds. In the course of business, the petitioner used to transfer money from his Canara Bank account to Kaleeswari Company’s bank account and after the receipt of money, the products would be delivered to the petitioner. The value of the de-oiled cake delivered to the petitioner, were lesser than the money transferred and the balance amount will be kept in reserve with the defacto complainant’s company. As such, nearly Rs.4 lakhs was kept in reserve in the defacto complainant’s company. On 01.10.2020, the de-oiled cake which were delivered to the petitioner’s company were less in quality and the same was informed to the Senior Executive of the defacto complainant’s company and the 1st accused who was the Senior Executive convinced the petitioner to reduce the price to avoid return of goods and further assured that such things will not happen next time. Further on 09.04.2020, the petitioner was transferred a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to the defacto complainant’s company’s account towards the purchase of de-oiled cake. However, the same was returned to the petitioner’s account. When the same was informed to the Senior Executive / 1st accused had given her account number to transfer the said Rs.2 lakhs to her account and based on which, the products were supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter the same practice was continued for subsequent purchasers.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there are business transactions between the defacto complainant’s company and the petitioner’s company. All the allegations are purely civil in nature. As far as this petitioner is concerned, he has paid money to the defacto complainant’s Manager and due to the substandard quality of the material, the rate was reduced. Therefore, there is no any offence committed by this petitioner and there is no any ingredient to constitute offence under Section 409 and 420 of IPC. Therefore, the pending FIR is liable to be quas