Gauhati High Court
Crl.Pet./943/2014 on 20 March, 2025
GAHC010018392014
2025:GAU-AS:3041
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.943 OF 2014
1. M/ s Shiv-Van Oil & Gas
Exploration Services Ltd,
A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 and
having its head office at Tower-
1, 5th Floor, NBCC Plaza, Sector-
V, Puhp Vihar, Saket, New
Delhi- 110017.
2. Mr. Prem Singhee,
CMD, M/ s Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas
Exploration Services Ltd.,
th
Tower-1, 5 Floor, NBCC Plaza,
Sector-V, Puhp Vihar, Saket,
New Delhi-110017
3. Mr. P.P. Sarogi,
G.M. Finance, M/ s Shiv-Vani Oil
& Gas Exploration Services Ltd.,
Tower-1, 5th Floor, NBCC Plaza,
Sector-V, Puhp Vihar, Saket,
New Delhi-110017.
4. Mr. S.K. Lakhotia,
Base Manager, M/ s Shiv-Vani Oil
& Gas Exploration Services Ltd.,
Tower-1, 5th Floor, NBCC Plaza,
Sector-V, Puhp Vihar, Saket,
New Delhi-110017
Page 1 of 18
.......Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam.
2. Sri Apurba Gogoi,
M/ s Global Oil Fields Pvt Ltd,
Global House, Phukan Nagar,
Sivsagar, Assam.
3. Sri Ajit Raju Gogoi,
M/ s Rongpur Construction and
Trade, Sankar Mandir Road,
Near Brahma Kumari,
Sivsagar.
4. Sri Krishna Agarwal,
M/ s S.K. Petro Services Pvt
Ltd, Bhaswati Bhawan, Anand
Nagar, A.T. Road, Sivsagar.
5. Sri Anjumoni Bordoloi,
M/ s Excel Energy Resources
Pvt Ltd, Mezanine Floor, Avion
Market, G.S. Road, Christian
Basti, Guwahati.
.......Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. B. Phookan, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Borthakur, Additional Public
Prosecutor, Assam.
Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025.
Date of Judgment : 20.03.2025 .
Page 2 of 18
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. R. B. Phookan, learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
respondent. None appears for the respondent
No.2/ complainant on call despite the name of the learned
Counsel for the respondent No.2 being reflected in the
Cause list.
2. This application is filed under Section 482, read
with Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 seeking quashing of the FI R registered as Sivasagar
P.S. Case No. 833/ 2014 under Section 420/ 406/ 34 of the
I ndian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I PC")
pending before the Officer-in-charge of Sivasagar Police
Station, Sivasagar.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the private
respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed an FI R on 30.09.2014
before the jurisdictional Police Station alleging inter alia
that the petitioner No.1 has outstanding dues amounting
several crores of rupees to the respondents in respect of
works executed by them pertaining to Drilling Rigs 29, 30,
31 and 50 of the Oil and Natural Gas Company (hereinafter
referred to as "ONGC") under the Principal contractor i.e.
petitioner No.1. I t is further alleged that for the purpose of
clearing such dues, a Memorandum of Understating
(hereinafter referred to as "MOU") was entered between
petitioner No.1 represented by petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4
and the private respondents on 06.03.2014 and
07.03.2014 respectively. However, the petitioners failed to
clear the outstanding dues despite repeated requests made
by the private respondents from time to time. I t is further
alleged that accordingly, the said FI R was registered under
Section 420/ 406/ 34 of I PC. Situated thus, the present
petition has been filed seeking quashing of the said FI R.
4. Mr. R. B. Phookan, learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that in-fact, prior to filing the instant
FI R, the private respondents forcibly entered in the
premises of the petitioner No.1 and removed the valuable
equipments of Rig 50 owned by the petitioner No.1,
forcibly with their muscle and money power, for which a
complaint was lodged by the petitioner No.1 on 29.09.2014
against such action of the private respondents. He further
submits that as a counterblast and to harass the petitioner,
the instant FI R has been lodged by the private
respondents. He further submits that even assuming the
allegation made out in the FI R to be correct, no criminal
case whatsoever, is made out against the petitioners. He
further submits that at best it is purely a civil dispute. He
therefore submits that continuance of further criminal
proceeding is wholly unjustified.
5. Per contra, Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, Assam strongly opposes the prayer of
the petitioner seeking quashing of the FI R in question. He
submits that investigation is yet to start and therefore, this
Court ought not to quash the instant FI R.
6. I have given my prudent consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for
the contending parties and have perused the material
available on record.
7. I t appears that the petitioner No.1 had been
awarded a contract for drilling services in the State of
Assam by the ONGC, for which purpose the petitioner No.1
required the services of man management on fixed per day
rate/ charges and accordingly the petitioner No.1 entered
into four contracts with different parties for availing the
services i.e. "Man Management And Relevant Services" for
operation and maintenance of Drilling Rig at Sibsagar in
terms of the said contract awarded by the ONGC and the
four parties with whom the petitioner No.1 entered into the
said contracts are: (a) M/ s Global Oil Field Services Ltd. on
25.07.2009 (b) M/ s S.K. Petro Services Pvt. Ltd. on
25.10.2009 (c) M/ s Rongpur Construction & Trade on
01.05.2010 and (d) M/ s Excel Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd.
on 25.08.2009. I t further appears that in the said four
contracts, arbitration clause for resolving dispute between
the parties are provided. I t appears that though the
petitioner No.1 was initially performing its obligation under
the terms and obligation stipulated in the four contracts in
question, however, in the last phase of work, dispute arose
between the parties as regards the dues owed by the
petitioner No.1. I n respect of the said dispute, an
understanding was reached between the petitioner No.1
and the four companies as regards the payment obligation
of petitioner No.1, in respect of the outstanding dues. I t
appears that accordingly, a MOU was entered between
them. I t appears that in the MOU the petitioner No.1 was
represented by petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4. I t appears that
despite the aforesaid understanding petitioner No.1 could
not pay the said amount due to severe financial crisis on
account of the embargo imposed by the Service Tax
Department.
8. I t appears that the Service Tax Department has
directed the clients of the petitioner No.1 not to release
any payment to the petitioner No.1 for which the petitioner
No.1 is in financial crisis. I t appears that the petitioner
No.1 by letter dated 13.08.2014 intimated the said four
companies as regards the same. I t was further informed in
the said letter that the petitioner No.1 would be in a
position to clear its dues after 6(six) months or so from the
date the Service Tax Department lifts the said embargo. I t
further appears that the petitioner No.1 proposed to clear
the outstanding dues by way of monthly installment over a
period commencing from August, 2014 till March, 2016.
9. I t appears that however, the private respondent
forcefully and illegally entered the godown of the petitioner
No.1 and unlawfully took away the valuable equipment of
Rig 50 which belongs to the petitioner No.1. Accordingly,
the petitioner No.1 lodged two FI Rs being FI R No.
123/ 2014 dated 29.09.2014 before the Moranhat Police
Station and FI R No. 830/ 2014 dated 29.09.2014 before
Sivsagar P.S.
10. Apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the FI R
No. 123/ 2014 dated 29.09.2014:
"Date: 29.09.2014
To,
The Station House Officer,
P.S. Sepon,
Sivasagar, Assam
Sub: Complaint against Mr. Ajit Gogoi, Mr. Bordiol,
Mr. Krishna Agarwal and Mr. Apurvafor Forcible
removable/theft of 150 drill pipes and Welding
Machine also Criminal Intimidation to our
employees.
Sir,
We, Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services
Ltd, a Company incorporated in 1989 and
providing services of Drilling & Seismic to Oil &
Gas Sectors mainly to ONGC and OIL INDIA Ltd.
We entered into Contracts with ONGC to provide
drilling Rigs. We provided 4 Rigs viz. Rig Nos.29,
30, 31 and 50 in Sivasagar arca under the said
Contracts.
During the operations of Contracts, we have
taken services from Rangpur Construction &
Traders Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Ajit Gogoi, Excel
Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd Rep by its MDMr.
Bordloi, S.K. Petro Services Ltd Rep by its MD Mr.
Krishna Agarwal and Global Oilfield Services Pvt
LtdRep by its MD Mr. Apurva to provide Men and
Catering Services. Our operations are completed
and Rigs, its equipments and associated items are
stocked in yards/godowns in and around
Sivasagar area. Rig 50 is located in yard at ONGC
Well BMAE (Banmali), Rig 30 is located in yard at
ONGC well site GKHD (Geleky) Basc Store,
Betabari, Sivasagar and Rig 31 is located in yard
at Sounpura. There are some financial issues to be
resolved with these Contractors.
It is informed that, to our utter shock and
surprise that on 26.09.2014, these Contractors
with their supporters and henchmen and some
unknown persons of seemingly criminal
background, brought trailers bearing numbers
AS04AC5029, NL04D3867 and AS04AC5039 with
one craneto our yard at ONGC Well BMAE
(Barmali), where Rig No.50 is stocked. They
forcibly loaded 150 drill pipes value of Rs. 1.50 Cr
and a Welding machine in trailers and taken away
on 27.09.2014. They threatened our Security
guards and forced to write some gate slips. They
further threatened to take equipments from this
yard and other godowns. They used offensive and
un parliamentary language.
The aforesaid persons threatened that they
will disrupt our rig operations at Duliajan by taking
away the assets. There is imminent threat and
danger of further removal of assets by these
contractors and also threat to life to our staff and
security guards.
We request you to register our Complaint
under the appropriate provisions of the IPC and
take appropriate action against aforesaid persons
according to law and safeguard our assets also our
personnel.
(E. Sreenivas Rao)
S/o Late E.J. Rama Rao
(Mobile No. 09810227941)
Senior Manager-Legal
Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration
Services Ltd, Tower-1, 5th
Floor, NBCC Plaza, Pushp
Vihar, Sector-V, Saket, New
Delhi-110017"
11. Apt also to reproduce the relevant portion of the
FI R No. 830/ 2014 dated 29.09.2014:
"Date:29.09.2014
To,
The Officer in charge,
Sivasagar P.S.
Sivasagar, Assam
Sub: Complaint against Mr. Ajit Gogoi, Mr. Bordloi,
Mr. Krishna Agarwal and Mr. Apurva for Forcible
removable/theft of Crane also Criminal
Intimidation to our employees.
Sir,
We, Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services
Ltd, a Company incorporated in 1989 and
providing services of Drilling & Seismic to Oil &
Gas Sectors mainly to ONGC and OIL INDIA Ltd.
We entered into Contracts with ONGC to provide
drilling Rigs. We provided 4 Rigs viz. Rig Nos 29,
30, 31 and 50 in Sivasagar area under the said
Contracts.
During the operations of Contracts, we have
taken services from Rangpur Construction &
Traders Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Ajit Gogoi, Excel
Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd Rep by its Proprietor Mr.
Bordloi, S.K. Petro Services Ltd Rep by its MD Mr.
Krishna Agarwal and Global Oilfield Services Pvt
Ltd Rep by its MD Mr. Apurva to provide, Men and
Catering Services. Our operations are completed
and Rigs, its equipments and associated items are
stocked in yards/godowns in and around
Sivasagar area. Rig 50 is located in yard at ONGC
Well BMAE (Banmali), Rig 30 is located in yard at
ONGC well site GKHD (Geleky) Base Store,
Betabari, Sivasagar and Rig 31 is located in yard
at Sounpura. There are some financial issues to be
resolved with these Contractors.
That yesterday i.e. on 28.09.2014 at 10 AM,
the aforesaid persons came to our yard at
Charekapara, where RIG No.31 is stocked and
forcibly taken away one 40 Ton Crane No. AS23Ac
6170 value of Rs. 1 Crore. They threatened our
Security guards and forced to write in entry
register. They further threatened to take
equipments from this yard and other godowns.
They used offensive and un parliamentary
language. Today again they come and taken away
yard. The aforesaid persons threatened that they
will disrupt our rig operations at Duliajan by taking
away the assets. There is imminent threat and
danger of further removal of assets by these
contractors and also threat to life to our staff and
security guards.
We request you to register our Complaint
under the appropriate provisions of the IPC and
take appropriate action against aforesaid persons
according to law and safeguard our assets also our
personnel.
(E. Sreenivas Rao)
S/o Late E.J. Rama Rao
(Mobile No. 09810227941)
Senior Manager-Legal
Shiv-Vani Oil & Gas
Exploration Services Ltd,
Tower-1, 5th Floor, NBCC
Plaza, Pushp Vihar, Sector-
V, Saket, New Delhi-
110017"
12. Reading of the aforesaid two F.I .Rs, it is apparent
that the petitioner lodged the same alleging inter alia that
the private respondents by entering in the yard of
petitioner No.1 took away the crane belonging to the
petitioner No.1 by threatening the staff present therein.
13. I t appears that pursuant to the aforesaid two FI Rs
filed by the petitioner No.1 against the private
respondents, the private respondents filed the instant FI R
on 30.09.2014 against the petitioners.
14. Apt to reproduce the FI R No. 833/ 2014 dated
30.09.2014, which is hereunder:
"To the officer-in-charge of the Sivasagar police station
Date-30/09/2014
Complaint U/S 420/211/34 of the IPC
It a respectfully submitted,
1. That the complainants have executed works of
the Drilling Rigs-29,30, 31 & 50 of the ONGC
Assam Asset under the principal contractor SHIV-
VANI OIL & EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD,
Sivasagar represented by its Base Manager Sri
S.K. Lakhotia for the Sivasagar district
2. That the Rigs-29,30 & 31 were dehired by
ONGC and hence the SHIV-VANI OIL &
EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD, Sivasagar took out
the said Rigs with all accessories from the ONGC
premises but as the Rig No.50 Installed at
SeponPorasorfl under the Sepon police outpost
under the Moranhat police statión, Sivasagar was
functioning, it was not dehired. However, the Rig
No.50 got workless since the month of April, 2014
and dehired the Rig.
3. That the, SHIV-VANI OIL & EXPLORATION
SERVICES LTD, Sivasagar had to clear several
Crores of rupees to the complainants and for the
purpose of clearing such dues the SHIV-VANI OIL &
EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD represented by its
CMD Mr. Prem Singhee, G.M. Finance-Sri P.P.
Saradgi and Sri S.K. Lakhotia the Base Manager of
the Sivasagar Project entered into a MOU
(Memorandum of Understandings) with the
complainants side held at Noida dated 06 and 07
March 2014 and in the said MOU the SHIV VANI
undertook to clear the outstanding to the
complainants within 30 September, 2014 and vide
the MOU the SHIV-VANI very clearly agreed and
assured that till the outstanding of all the five
parties/ complainants are not cleared the operation
of the Rig 50 would be under the sole supervision
of the complainants and that till then the Rig 50
shall not be moved by the SHIV-VANI.
Copy of the MOU is enclosed herewith as
annexure-A.
4. That as agreed upon, the SHIV-VANI did not at
all clear the outstanding to the complainants and
under constant demands the SHIV-VANI vide the
latest letter No. Shiv/MMC/Sivasagar/01 dated
13/8/2014 once again assured the complainants
to make slab-wise payments by paying the 1st
payment of Rs.15 lakhs to each of the
complainants within 14/8/14 but they again
defrauded.
Copy of the letter No. Shiv/MMC/Sivasagar/01 is
enclosed herewith as annexure-B.
5. That in the meantime ONGC directed the SHIV-
VANI to remove the Rig-50 with threat of levying
penal charges. Sri S.K. Lakhotia- the Base
Manager of the Sivasagar Project of the SHIV-VANI
met the complainants with request to remove the
Rig-50. The request was made in view of the
existing fact that the Rig was under direct control &
supervision of the complainants. Relevantly it is
stated that as the Rig-50 was dehired and it was
under direct control of the complainants with
authority thereof (annexure-A), the complainants
who have got lien over the subject Rig-50 with its
all accessories until their outstanding are not
realized. AND as such they promptly agreed to
remove the Rig -50 with its all accessories from the
ONGC premises. Sri S.K. Lakhotia- the Base
Manager of the Sivasagar Project of the SHIV-VANI
got Transfer Challans issued to the complainants
from the SHIV-VANI Security for the two cranes
and 150 nos. of 5 inch drill pipes. There was plan
to remove the Rig-50 and all of its remaining
accessories accordingly for the safety of all them.
The removed items are being safely kept in the
safe yard of the complaints near Darikapar under
Sivasagar police station.
6. That with malice design to deprive the
complainants from securing the Rig-50 and its
accessories, some vested persons unauthorisedly
lodged a complaint against the complainants
before you but the above noted facts on record are
crystal clear showing the fact that such Ejahar is
false, lodged with malice design to harass the
complainants.
In view of the above noted existing facts on record,
appropriate penal actions may be initiated against
such accused persons for Iodging false case and
also for defrauding the complainants, also enabling
the complainants to remove the Rig-50 and its
accessories to their possession, for the ends of
justice."
15. Pertinent that the private respondents have also
filed another FI R against the petitioners at Moranhat P.S.,
which is registered as Moranhat P.S. Case No. 128/ 2014
dated 06.10.2014 under Section 420/ 406 of I PC, against
which the petitioners have filed a separate quashing
petition being criminal petition No. 944/ 2014.
16. Apparent from reading of the aforesaid FI R that
no allegation as regards fraudulent or dishonest intention
at the time of making the promise or fraudulent
misappropriation is shown in the FI R. I t further appears
that there has been breach of the terms and conditions of
the MoU in question for which at best a civil action could
have been brought against the petitioner. Mere breach of
contract cannot give rise to criminal proceeding for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown
right at the beginning of the transaction. I n other words, to
hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show
that he has fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of
making promise. Similarly, every breach of trust may not
result in criminal breach of trust, unless there is evidence
showing fraudulent misappropriation. Therefore, every
breach of trust may not result in criminal breach of trust
unless there is evidence showing act of fraudulent
misappropriation. The act of breach of trust involves a civil
wrong, in which a person who is aggrieved, may seek
redressal for damages in civil Court but a breach of trust
with mens rea gives rise to criminal prosecution.
17. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited
and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,
reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. Relevant paragraphs of
the aforesaid decision are reproduced hereunder for ready
reference:
"36. What can be discerned from the above is that
the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406
IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific
ingredients:
In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust
(Section 406 IPC)
(1) There must be entrustment with person
for property or dominion over the property, and
(2) The person entrusted:
(a) Dishonestly misappropriated or
converted property to his own use, or
(b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the
property or wilfully suffers any other
person so to do in violation of:
(i) Any direction of law prescribing
the method in which the trust is
discharged; or
(ii) Legal contract touching the
discharge of trust (see: S.W.
Palanitkar¹2).
Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section
420 IPC, the essential ingredients are:
(1) Deception of any person, either by making a
false or misleading representation or by other
action or by omission;
(2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any
person to deliver any property, or
(3) The consent that any person shall retain any
property and finally intentionally inducing that
person to do or omit to do anything which he would
not do or omit (see: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia
v. State of Punjab13).
37. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens
rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest
intention must be present, and in the case of
cheating it must be there from the very beginning or
inception.
38. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint
fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients
noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear
a serious misconception of law in the mind of the
police as well as the courts below, that if it is a
case of the complainant that offence of criminal
breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC,
punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed by
the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be
said that the accused has also committed the
offence of cheating as defined and explained in
Section 415 IPC, punishable under Section 420
IPC.
39. Every act of breach of trust may not result in a
penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless
there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent
misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves
a civil wrong in respect of which the person may
seek his remedy for damages in civil courts but,
any breach of trust with a mens rea, gives rise to a
criminal prosecution as well. It has been held in
Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar
Surekha14 as under: (SCC p. 824, para 4)
'4. We have heard Mr Maheshwari on behalf of the
appellant and are of the opinion that no case has
been made out against the respondents under
Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. For the
purpose of the present appeal, we would assume that
the various allegations of fact which have been
made in the complaint by the appellant are correct.
Even after making that allowance, we find that the
complaint does not disclose the commission of any
offence on the part of the respondents under Section
420 of the Penal Code, 1860. There is nothing in the
complaint to show that the respondent had dishonest
or fraudulent intention at the time the appellant
parted with Rs 35,000. There is also nothing to
indicate that the respondents induced the appellant
to pay them Rs 35,000 by deceiving him. It is further
not the case of the appellant that a representation
was made by the respondents to him at or before the
time he paid the money to them and that at the time
the representation was made, the respondents knew
the same to be false. The fact that the respondents
subsequently did not abide by their commitment that
they would show the appellant to be the proprietor
of Drang Transport Corporation and would also
render accounts to him in the month of December
might create civil liability for them, but this fact
would not be sufficient to fasten criminal liability on
the respondents for the offence of cheating.'
40. To put it in other words, the case of cheating
and dishonest intention starts with the very
inception of the transaction. But in the case of
criminal breach of trust, a person who comes into
possession of the movable property and receives it
legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his
own use against the terms of the contract, then the
question is, in a case like this, whether the
retention is with dishonest intention or not,
whether the retention involves criminal breach of
trust or only a civil liability would depend upon the
facts of each case.
41. The distinction between mere breach of
contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust
and cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating, the
intention of the accused at the time of inducement
should be looked into which may be judged by a
subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent
conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract
cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is
shown right from the beginning of the transaction
i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been
committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is
the gist of the offence.
42. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the
property must have been entrusted to the accused
or he must have dominion over it. The property in
respect of which the offence of breach of trust has
been committed must be either the property of
some person other than the accused or the
beneficial interest in or ownership of it must be of
some other person. The accused must hold that
property on trust of such other person. Although
the offence i.e. the offence of breach of trust and
cheating involve dishonest intention, yet they are
mutually exclusive and different in basic concept.
43. There is a distinction between criminal breach
of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal
intention is necessary at the time of making a false
or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In
criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment
is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of
trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the
property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the
same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender
fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by
deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a
situation, both the offences cannot co-exist
simultaneously."
18. Reading of the aforesaid decision it is apparent
that under both the sections 406 and 420 of I PC, mens rea
i.e. intention to defraud or dishonest intention must be
present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from
the very beginning or inception. Therefore, to give rise to
criminal prosecution, a breach of trust is to be actuated
with mens rea and for cheating there has to be fraudulent
and dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.
As a necessary corollary to the above, unless such
averment/ allegations are set out in the F.I .R. no offence
whatsoever, under Section 406/ 420 of I PC respectively is
constituted.
19. I n the instant case, the plain reading of the
complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients
of section 406 and 420 of I PC. I n fact, no allegations either
of fraudulent or dishonest intention and/ or fraudulent
misappropriation are discernable from the averments set
out in the instant F.I .R. On the contrary, it appears that
the private respondents are using the Police Stations and
Criminal Courts as a medium to settle personal grudges. I t
is well settled that where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused, and/ or where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge, this Court is
entitled in the exercise of the inherent powers under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the F.I .R. (Refer:- State of
Haryana & Other Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others, reported
in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335).
20. I n the light of the above, I am of the unhesitant
view that the allegations made in the F.I .R., even if the
same is taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any criminal offence
against the petitioner and that the F.I .R. appears to have
been lodged with mala-fide intention. Therefore, the
present FI R is nothing but a clear abuse of the process of
law. Hence, continuation of further proceeding in respect
of the said FI R would amount to gross travesty of justice.
Hence, the petitioners have made out a case for quashing
the F.I .R. in question.
21. As such, the F.I .R registered as Sivasagar P.S.
case No. 833/ 2014 dated 30.09.2014 under Section
420/ 406/ 34 of I PC stands set aside and quashed.
22. Resultantly, the criminal petition stands allowed
and is disposed of.
23. I nterim order, if any, passed earlier accordingly, is
hereby made absolute.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
