IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 21^st OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.7682 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

ASHISH SANGHI S/O SURESH SANGHI (AGRAWAL), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O GALI NO. 7 SHANKAR NAGAR RAIPUR, KHAMTARAI, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI YADVENDRA DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION BICHHIYA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. KUSH SHUKLA S/O LATE RAGHUNATH PRASAD SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O OM TRADERS TOPKHANA, P.S. BICCHIYA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (STATE BY SHRI K.S. BAGHEL - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

............................................................................................................................................

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

O R D E R

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.215/2023 registered at Police Station Bichhiya, District Rewa for offence under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC. 2. It is fairly conceded by counsel for the applicant that Police after completing the investigation has also filed the charge-sheet.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR

3. Basic allegations against the applicant are that for supply of 50 Tons of Sariya, total amount of Rs.22,00,000/- was paid to the applicant through Bank. However, only 25 Tons of Sariya worth Rs.15,94,740/- has been sent and remaining 25 Tons of Sariya was not sent. Furthermore, complainant had also sent Rs.45,00,000/- through Bank for supply of additional 60 Tons of Sariya but applicant has neither supplied the Sariya as ordered by the complainant nor has returned the remaining amount.

4. During the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded by counsel for the applicant that the entire supply has not been made by him and at least 50 Tons of Sariya is yet to be dispatched to the complainant. The only contention of counsel for the applicant is that the matter is civil in nature and registration of criminal offence is unwarranted.

5. It is true that the tendency of complainant to convert civil dispute into criminal dispute should be discouraged but the question is that whether non-supply of goods after having received the advance amount would amount to criminal offence also or it would amount to pure civil dispute only.

6. Sections 420 and 409 of IPC read as under:- "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 anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

* * *

"

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR "409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

7. If a person has been entrusted with property in the way of his business as merchant commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, is liable to be punished. Similarly, whoever 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 anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, would amou