Gujarat High Court
Sunilkumar Ramakant Dwivedi @ Rajmani vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1142 of 2025
==========================================================
SUNILKUMAR RAMAKANT DWIVEDI @ RAJMANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KISHAN N BRAHMBHATT(11382) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NILESH S BRAHMBHATT(11421) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANISH S SHAH(5859) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 18/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondent - State. Learned advocate Mr. Manish S. Shah appearing for the respondent No.02 waives service of notice for the respondent No.02.
1. By filing the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief.
"A. YOUR LORSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow this Application.
B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari, order, direction and/or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the FIR Being - I CR NO. 11191001240068 OF 2024 Anandnagar Police registered at Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) on
02.04.2024 for the alleged offences punishable U/S Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined 406,420 and 114 OF I.P.C, incidental or further proceedings arising out of the same i.e. Chargesheet and the Criminal Case No. 28255 of 2024 Pending before the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ahmedabad (Rural) C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further proceedings of FIR Being - I CR NO. 11191001240068 OF 2024 registered at Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) on 02.04.2024 for the alleged offences punishable U/S 406,420 and 114 OF I.P.C as well as incidental or further proceedings arising out of the same i.e. Chargesheet and the Criminal Case No. 28255 of 2024 Pending before the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ahmedabad (Rural) D. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present petition are such that the company of the petitioner and the company of the first informant were having business transactions with each other. The first informant had sold certain goods to the company of the petitioner. Initially, the payment of the amount of 1,76,985 US dollars was made by the company of the petitioner to the first informant for the said purchases. However, the amount of 4,84,096.40 US dollars was not paid by the company of the petitioner to the first informant despite repeated reminders. The respondents herein therefore lodged the FIR in question against the petitioner and the other co-accused at Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad. The investigating agency, after conclusion of investigation, filed Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined charge-sheet against the petitioner and the other co-accused for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. Heard learned Advocate Shri. Kishan N. Brahmbhatt appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner herein was the director of the company named Agrovet Market Limited. However, he had resigned from the post of director of the company in question in the year 2022 i.e. prior to registration of the present FIR. He submitted that as per the FIR itself, the incident alleged in the FIR had taken place between January 2019 to January 2020 for which the FIR came to be lodged in the year 2024 i.e. after a period of more than 4 years. The delay caused in lodging the FIR has not at all been explained by the first informant. Moreover, the dispute involved in the present offence arises out of business transactions between the company of the petitioner and the first informant, which is absolutely of a civil nature. He further submitted that there was an agreement entered into between the parties with regard to the business transactions between them and as per the said agreement, the disputes arising between the parties out of the business transactions were required to be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings and the said agreement very well contained an arbitration clause. However, the respondent herein, instead of taking recourse to the arbitration proceedings, has lodged the present FIR. He submitted that the company of the petitioner had raised a dispute about the quality of the goods supplied by the respondent and therefore the payment qua the Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined remaining amount could not be made. He also submitted that it is an admitted position that the company of the petitioner had paid the amount of consideration in part. Hence there was no intention on the part of the company of the petitioner to cheat. Had it been the intention, the company of the petitioner would not have made the part payment for the purchases in question. He also submitted that as per the settled legal position, Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as the IPC) cannot go together. Learned advocate has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:
1) In case of Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025(0) AIJEL-SC
2) In case of Vijay Kumar Ghai and others Vs. State of West Bangal and others, (2022) 7 SCC 124
3) Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248 3.1 He therefore submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the FIR in question and all other consequential proceedings.
4. Learned APP has opposed the present petition. He submitted that there was an intention on the part of the petitioner to commit the present offence as after having purchased the goods from the respondent, no payment in that regard had been made despite repeated reminders. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present petition.
5. Learned Advocate Shri. Manish S. Shah appearing for Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined respondent No.02 has opposed the present application contending that this is the modus operandi on the part of the petitioner and the other co-accused to commit such offence. He submitted that the applicant and the other co-accused had floated a company in question in Zambia and thereafter, had made purchases of goods from the company of the respondent.
After making initial payment of some amount, the remaining amount was not paid by the petitioner and the other co-accused. He submitted that the resignation of the petitioner from the post of director of the company is nothing but an eye wash as no document in that regard has been produced on record. He further submitted that several other incidents have been registered against the petitioner and the other co-accused as well as the company in question in Zambia and the High Court at Zambia has also ruled in favour of the respondent. He further submitted that dispute with regard to the quality of the goods had been raised at much belated stage to avoid making payment for the said goods. He further submitted that the lodging of the FIR got delayed as the respondent was required to file an application before the police authorities and the police authorities had taken some time to decide the said application and it was only thereafter that the present FIR was registered. Thus, there was no deliberate delay on the part of the respondent in lodging the FIR. The delay has thus been satisfactorily explained by the respondent. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present petition.
6. Heard learned advocates for the parties. The crux of the FIR lodged against the present petitioner and the other co-
Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined accused is such that the company of which the petitioner herein was working as a director had placed an order for purchase of certain goods to the company of the respondent complainant and pursuant to the said purchase order placed in the year 2019, the goods worth 6,61,080.40 US dollars were supplied by the respondent to the company of the petitioner. The company of the petitioner had made the payment of 1,76,985 US dollars to the respondent for those purchases and the remaining amount of 4,84,096.40 US dollars have not been paid by the company of the petitioner to the respondent. With this grievance, the FIR in question has been lodged against the petitioner and the other co- accused for an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
7. The petitioner herein is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Section 406 of the IPC prescribes punishment for criminal breach of trust. The term criminal breach of trust has been defined in Section 405 of the IPC as under:-
"405. Criminal breach of trust: Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust."
8. As noted herein above, the company of the present applicant had purchased the goods from respondent no.2 on the basis of the agreement for consideration. The important ingredient to bring in the offence of criminal breach of trust is the entrustment of property by the complainant to the accused. In the present case, when the goods in question were sold by Respondent no.2 to the company of the applicant pursuant to the agreement, whether the supply of goods thereafter amounts to entrustment or not, requires consideration. The Hon'ble Apex Court was posed with this question in its judgment in case of State OF Gujarat V/S Jaswantlal Nathalal (AIR 1968 SC 700) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "The expression entrustment carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Further the person handing over the property must have confidence in the person taking the property so as to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment." In the present case also, admittedly, the transaction of sale had taken place between the parties whereby, Respondent no. 2 had sold the goods to the company of the applicant. Once respondent no.2 had sold the goods to the company of the applicant, it had no right or dominion over the goods in question and therefore, there was no Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined entrustment of property by Respondent no.2 in favour of the company of the applicant. Thus, the basic ingredient of entrustment is absent in the present case.
9. Section 420 of the IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the IPC as under:-
"415. Cheating:- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."
10. Upon perusal of the FIR, there appears to be nothing to indicate that the company of the petitioner had deceived respondent No.02 to deliver the goods in question to it. On the contrary, the respondent No.02 and the company of the petitioner had entered into an agreement and as per the said agreement, respondent No.02 had sold the goods to the company of the petitioner. Thus, it does not appear that the company of the petitioner herein had obtained the goods in question deceitfully from respondent No.02. It is also the case on the part of the complainant that even a part payment was also made for Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined the said purchases by the company of the petitioner. As per the settled legal position, for making out an offence of cheating, there has to be an intention to cheat from the very inception. The facts referred to herein above do not indicate any such intention being present on the part of the company of the petitioner. The material available on the record also indicates that there was no inducement made by the company of the petitioner to respondent No.02 to deliver the goods in question. Thus, the ingredients for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC are also not made out. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in case of Peethambaran V/S State of Kerala & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 1381 of 2023), in para 24, has discussed the ingredients for the offence of cheating as under:
"(i) The representation made by the person was false.
(ii) The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false.
(iii) The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made.
(iv) The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed."
Having regard to the fact that the parties had entered into an agreement and several transactions took place between the parties pursuant to the said agreement as discussed herein above, none of the above ingredients are present in the present case.
11. The Apex Court in its recent judgment in case of Deepak Gaba & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2023 (2) Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined SCC 423 has observed that sine qua non of Section 415 of the IPC is "fraudulence", "dishonesty", or "intentional inducement", and absence of these elements would debase the offence of cheating. It is further observed that there is no assertion, much less legal evidence, to submit that JIPL had engaged in dishonesty, fraud, or intentional inducement to deliver a property. It is also not the case of respondent no. 2 that JIPL had tried to deceive them, either by making a false or misleading representation, or by any other action or omission; nor is it their case that JIPL had offered any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver a property In present case also, the observations made by the Apex Court in the said judgment would be squarely applicable.
12. The Apex Court in another judgment in the case of R.K. Vijayasarathy Vs. Sudha Seetharam reported in 2019 (16) SCC 739 in Paragraph Nos. 13 & 14 has discussed the ingredents of Section 405 and 415 of the IPC. The said Paragraph Nos. 13 & 14 read thus:-
" 13Section 405 of the Penal Code reads thus:
"Section 405.- Criminal breach of trust. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined A careful reading of Section 405 shows that the ingredients of a criminal breach of trust are as follows:
i) A person should have been entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property;
ii) That person should dishonestly misappropriate or convert to their own use that property, or dishonestly use or dispose of that property or willfully suffer any other person to do so; and
iii) That such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.
Entrustment is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code.
14 Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus:
"Section 415. Cheating. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."
The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
ii) (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
(b) the person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b) above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating."
13. Thereafter, the Apex Court has gone on to observe as follows:-
16 A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence. The relevant extract of the complaint filed by the first respondent is extracted below:
"The accused person's son Mr. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam started to transfer all his monies to different accounts and also transferred some monies belonging to him in the US to his parents accounts in Bangalore, India and he also pleaded his wife i.e. Complainant's daughter that he also wanted to divert some funds unto Complainant's account in Bangalore... That Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam diverted some of his monies to Accused No. 1 and 2 and the Complainant...
It is further pertinent to mention that the accident occurred on 05.02.2010 and money was transferred on 17.02.2010, the transfer was due to the insecurity at the behest of Mr. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Rathnam, the money was not sought or Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined required by the complainant.
The Complainant daughter Ms. Savitha Seetharam convinced the Complainant to accept transfer of monies which was for the benefit of the Accused person's son Mr. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam and to hold it in trust for him and accordingly the son of the accused transferred monies on 17th February 2010 to the Complainant account Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only)... It is pertinent to mention that the accused person's son Mr. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam insisted the Complainant and her husband to pay the said monies by way of cash to the accused person's including the interest...Mr. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam sought for the return of the aforesaid monies i.e. of Rs. 20,00,000/-"
"...The said monies were paid in cash as per the dicta of the accused person's son Mr. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam has filed a false and frivolous suit..." (Emphasis supplied) 17 The condition necessary for an act to constitute an offence under Section 405 of the Penal Code is that the accused was entrusted with some property or has dominion over property. The first respondent has stated that the disputed sum was transferred by the son of the appellants of his own volition to her. The complaint clearly states that the amount was transferred for the benefit of the son of the appellants and that the first respondent was to hold the amount 'in trust' for him. The complaint alleges that the money was transferred to the appellants 'as per the dicta' of the son of the appellants. There is on the face of the complaint, no entrustment of the appellants with any property.
18 The condition necessary for an act to constitute an offence under Section 415 of the Penal Code is that there Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined was dishonest inducement by the accused. The first respondent admitted that the disputed sum was transferred by the son of the appellants to her bank account on 17 February 2010. She alleges that she transferred the money belonging to the son of the appellants at his behest. No act on part of the appellants has been alleged that discloses an intention to induce the delivery of any property to the appellants by the first respondent. There is thus nothing on the face of the complaint to indicate that the appellants dishonestly induced the first respondent to deliver any property to them. Cheating is an essential ingredient to an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code. The ingredient necessary to constitute the offence of cheating is not made out from the face of the complaint and consequently, no offence under Section 420 is made out.
14. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court and the facts of the case discussed herein above, the ingredients for offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are not made out against the present applicant.
15. The transactions in question had taken place between the parties in the year 2019 and 2020 for which the FIR is sought to be lodged in the year 2024. It is sought to be contended on behalf of respondent No.02 that after commission of the offence in question on 26.11.2021, the respondent had submitted a representation to the Office of Police Inspector, Sanand Police Station. The police authority in question had taken some time to decide the application which had resulted into delay in lodging the FIR. However, though the representation in question was addressed by the respondent to the Sanand Police Station, the present FIR has been lodged at Anandnagar Police Station of Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined Ahmedabad City. Therefore, the justification sought to be given by the respondent for delay in lodging the FIR does not appear to be plausible. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its Judgment in case of Kishan Singh through Lrs Versus Gurpal Singh and Others reported in 2010 (8) SCC 775 has observed as under:
"22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court."
16. In another Judgment in case of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others Versus state of Chhattisgarh and another reported in 2016 (9) SCC, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.30 has observed as under:
"30. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story."
17. The record indicates that the company of the present applicant did not make the payment for the goods procured, as in its opinion, the goods were of inferior quality. The agreement entered into between the company of the present applicant and the respondent no.2 contains an arbitration clause. As per the said clause, any dispute or difference between the parties were required to be settled by the process of arbitration. The respondent no.2 appears to have already initiated the process of arbitration for resolution of the dispute in question.
18. Having regard to the facts of the case, the dispute involved in the present case appears to be purely of a civil nature. A civil dispute arisen between the parties is sought to be given a criminal color by filing present FIR by respondent no.2.
29. The Apex Court in its judgment in case of Vinod Natesan (supra) has observed as under:-
"The dispute between the parties at the most can be said to be the civil dispute and it is tried to be converted into the criminal dispute. Therefore, we are also of the opinion that continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused will be an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the High Court has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings. Merely because the original accused might not have paid the amount due and payable under the agreement or might not have paid the amount in lieu of one month Notice before terminating the agreement by cheating and/or Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1142/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC as alleged."
21. The Apex Court, in its recent judgemnt in case of Sarabjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2023 (5) SCC 360, in Paragraph No. 13 has 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 promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings.
22. In the result, present application is allowed, the impugned FIR being C.R. No.11191001240068 of 2024 registered with Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad city for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) AHS Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by MR.AMIT HEMANTKUMAR SONAGARA(HCD0079) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:47:12 IST 2025