Gujarat High Court
Arvindlal @ Mama Amrutlal vs State Of Gujarat on 19 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14934 of 2013
==========================================================
ARVINDLAL @ MAMA AMRUTLAL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 19/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), the applicant seek
quashing of the FIR registered as C.R.No. I-90 of 2011 registered
with Madhavpura Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence
punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code and further proceedings arising thereof.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under;
2.1 The complainant, residing with his mother and operating
Shop No. 1/8 at Madhavpura Marketing Yard, filed a complaint
alleging that on 14.03.2011, the applicants--who also run a
grain wholesale business named Valina Enterprise--visited his
shop. Later, on 16.03.2011, applicant No.1 placed an order over
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
the phone for 50 kg sugar, 60 tins of Tirupati oil and 50 tins of
live oil, promising to pay upon delivery. The goods were delivered
via a Tata 407 vehicle by the complainant, but made excuses to
avoid payment. As a result, the complainant filed a formal
complaint on 18.03.2011. Following the complaint, an
investigation was conducted, and statements were recorded from
the complainant, the driver, laborers and the Investigating
Officer. A charge sheet was filed on 20.05.2011.
3. Seeking quashment of FIR, learned advocate Mr. Jeet V.
Patel appearing for the petitioner on behalf of learned advocate
Mr. Hriday Buch for the petitioner submitted that on plain
reading of FIR, it fails to disclose any essential ingredient of
criminal breach of trust or cheating defined in section 405 and
415 of IPC having punishment defined in section 406 and 420 of
IPC. He would submit that FIR on its face value indicates, the
complainant, residing with his mother and operating Shop No.
1/8 at Madhavpura Marketing Yard, filed a complaint alleging
that on 14.03.2011, the applicants--who also run a grain
wholesale business named Valina Enterprise--visited his shop.
Later, on 16.03.2011, applicant No.1 placed an order over the
phone for 50 kg sugar, 60 tins of Tirupati oil and 50 tins of live
oil, promising to pay upon delivery. The goods were delivered via
a Tata 407 vehicle by the complainant, but made excuses to
avoid payment. As a result, the complainant filed a formal
complaint on 18.03.2011. Following the complaint, an
investigation was conducted, and statements were recorded from
the complainant, the driver, laborers and the Investigating
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
Officer. A charge sheet was filed on 20.05.2011. It is argued that
FIR taken on its face does disclose only commercial transaction
between the parties, face of FIR does not spell any of ingredient
of criminal breach of trust or cheating. It also argued that by
filing the FIR, complainant instead of resorting civil remedy,
adopted criminal remedy to pressurize petitioner. In a way,
complainant has given color of criminal proceeding to purely civil
dispute. Therefore, it is submitted to quash the FIR. In support
of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Jeet V. Patel appearing
for the petitioner has relied on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v/s. State of Uttar
Pradesh [2024 INSC 626].
4. Though notice is served to respondent no.2 - complainant,
none remained present.
5. Learned APP for respondent - State would submit that
correctness of FIR would be tested in trial but in given
circumstances, FIR should not be scuttle at this stage.
Therefore, he submits to dismiss the petition.
6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused
the record. In the case on hand, quashing petition was filed on
filing of FIR against the petitioner. On 24.09.2013, this Court
has passed following order :-
"1. Notice returnable on 21.10.2013. Learned APP
Mr. R.C. Kodekar waives service of notice on behalf
of respondent No.1 - State.
2. It would be open for the applicants to request the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
concerned Trial Court for adjournment."
7. It is relevant to refer order dated 11.02.2019 by which,
Coordinate Bench has confirmed interim relief as under:
"It appears that the first informant is not available
at his known addresses mentioned in the FIR as
also supplied by the learned advocate for the
applicants subsequent to the non service of notice
in the present application. The said affidavit dated
22.01.2019, at page No.44, reflects that, attempts
to serve the first informant have failed on quite few
occasions. Vide an order dated 22.1.2019, a fresh
notice was issued to the respondent No.2 and it
was ordered to be served through Police Inspector,
Madhupura Police Station.
Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned APP, on oral instructions,
states that, even at the address mentioned in the
notice, which is a new subsequent address
provided by the applicant, the respondent No.2
herein is not residing there and the attempt to
serve him thereby by the police has also failed.
Mr.Param Buch, learned advocate for the applicant
states that first informant himself is facing 3 (three)
criminal cases.
Mr.Param Buch, learned advocate for the
applicants drew my attention to the contents of the
First Information Report and the Charge-sheet. It
appears that there is a commercial transaction in
between the first informant and the applicants that
though the goods were supplied by the first
informant to the applicant, no payment for the
same is made though it was promised.
In view of such averments in the FIR as also the
charge-sheet, it appears that dispute is with regard
to the non payment of the goods supplied and
possibly, the remedy may lie elsewhere.
Hence, RULE.
Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned APP waives service of
rule on behalf of respondent No.1. Notice of rule to
be served by the Police Inspector, Madhupura
Police Station on the respondent No.2.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
Interim relief in terms of para 7(B) till further
orders."
8. Bare reading of FIR demonstrate that petitioners came in
contact with applicants when they visited his shop and during
that period, he provided the goods as per order received from
applicant No.1 over the phone. FIR came to be lodged against the
petitioner under sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code as he has not paid money of goods sold. Similarly, Civil
dispute has been given clock of criminality.
9. The FIR has been lodged under Section 406 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code. The scope and expanse of this provision is
appreciated through Section 405 and 415 of the Indian Penal
Code in Case of Radheyshyam Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 231. Following ingredients ae culled out to to
constitute the criminal breach of trust.
"For an offence punishable under Section 406, IPC,
the following ingredients must exist:
i. The accused was entrusted with property, or
entrusted with dominion over property;
ii. The accused had dishonestly misappropriated or
converted to their own use that property, or
dishonestly used or disposed of that property or
wilfully suffer any other person to do so; and
iii. 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."
10. In case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Others v. Sudha
Seetharam and othera (2019) 16 SCC 739, the Apex Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
reading Section 415 with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
considered what could be cheating and laid down as under:
"16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest
inducement of a person by deceiving him:
16.1.1. 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
16.1.2. 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
16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. 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."
11. Punishment of criminal breach of trust and cheating are
slated in section 406 and 420. If any person has been dominion
over the property or entrustment with property, dishonestly
misappropriated or converted property to his own use or
dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers
any other person so to do in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged but
someone violates trust and dishonestly misappropriated or
converted property to his own can be said that he has committed
criminal breach of trust.
12. In background of above provision of law, if we again see
contents of FIR, at no point of time, it appears that accused has
dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own
use or dishonestly used or disposed of the property for obtaining
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
such property or cheated first informant fraudulently or
dishonestly or include any person to deliver any property. FIR
demonstrates simply civil transaction between two traders. FIR
is filed giving color of criminality. It is significant to note that, if
first informant feels duped and has not been paid for goods sold,
he could file civil suit for recovery of outstanding amount, but
can not invoke criminal proceedings to recover the out-standing
amount.
13. What could be noticed that police authorities have misused
powers and added section 406 and 420 of IPC for the purpose of
recovery of outstanding amount which alleged to have been due
in commercial transaction. This Court as well as Apex Court has
time and again deprecated approach of police authorities for
registering such kind of FIR whereby civil dispute has been
converted into criminal proceedings. Even highest police officer
of State in the rank of DGP has issued circular to police
personnel for not registering FIR where civil dispute are given
color of criminal proceedings. But for the reason best known to
the police officers concerned without following those circulars,
FIR of such kind are reportedly registered.
14. Yes, in another decision, the Apex Court recently examined
scope of Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the
case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. (supra). The finding and
observation of the Apex Court in para 24 to 41, which are
relevant reads as under :
"24. This Court in its decision in S.W. Palanitkar &
Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2002) 1
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
SCC 241 expounded the difference in the
ingredients required for constituting an of offence
of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) viz-a-
viz the offence of cheating (Section 420). The
relevant observations read as under: -
"9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal
breach of trust are: (i) entrusting a person with
property or with any dominion over property, (ii)
that person entrusted (a) dishonestly
misappropriating or converting that property to his
own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of
that property or wilfully suffering any other person
so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made,
touching the discharge of such trust.
10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i)
there should be fraudulent or dishonest
inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the
person so deceived should be induced to deliver
any property to any person, or to consent that any
person shall retain any property; or (b) the person
so deceived should be intentionally induced to do
or 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), the act of omission should be one
which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm
to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or
property."
25. 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: -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted
property to his own use, or
b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or
willfully 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.P.
Palanitkar (supra).
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 persons 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 Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712 :
(2009) Cr.L.J. 3462 (SC))
26. 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.
27. 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 of
IPC, punishable under Section 406 of 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
explained in Section 415 of the IPC, punishable
under Section 420 of the IPC.
28. 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
Surekha & Ors., reported in (1973) 2 SCC 823 as
under:
"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 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 Penal Code, 1860.
There is nothing in the complaint to show that the
respondents 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, 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 on the respondents for the
offence of cheating."
29. To put it in other words, the case of cheating
and dishonest intention starts with the very
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
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.
30. 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. 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. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
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.
31. At the most, the court of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate could have issued process for
the offence punishable under Section 420 of the
IPC i.e. cheating but in any circumstances no case
of criminal breach of trust is made out. The reason
being that indisputably there is no entrustment of
any property in the case at hand. It is not even the
case of the complainant that any property was
lawfully entrusted to the appellants and that the
same has been dishonestly misappropriated. The
case of the complainant is plain and simple. He
says that the price of the goods sold by him has
not been paid. Once there is a sale, Section 406 of
the IPC goes out of picture. According to the
complainant, the invoices raised by him were not
cleared. No case worth the name of cheating is
also made out.
32. Even if the Magistrate would have issued
process for the offence punishable under Section
420 of the IPC, i.e., cheating the same would have
been liable to be quashed and set aside, as none
of the ingredients to constitute the offence of
cheating are disclosed from the materials on
record.
33. It has been held in State of Gujarat v.
Jaswantlal Nathalal reported in (1968) 2 SCR 408,
"The term "entrusted" found in Section 405 IPC
governs not only the words "with the property"
immediately following it but also the words "or
with any dominion over the property" occurring
thereafter--see Velji Raghvaji Patel v. State of
Maharashtra [(1965) 2 SCR 429]. Before there can
be any entrustment there must be a trust meaning
thereby an obligation annexed to the ownership of
property and a confidence reposed in and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
accepted by the owner or declared and accepted
by him for the benefit of another or of another and
the owner. But that does not mean that such an
entrustment need conform to all the technicalities
of the law of trust -- see Jaswantrai Manilal
Akhaney v. State of Bombay [1956 SCR 483]. 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"".
34. Similarly, in Central Bureau of Investigation,
SPE, SIU(X), New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries
Ltd., Calcutta reported in (1996) 5 SCC 591 this
Court held that the expression "entrusted with
property" used in Section 405 of the IPC connotes
that the property in respect of which criminal
breach of trust can be committed must necessarily
be the property of some person other than the
accused or that the beneficial interest in or
ownership thereof must be in the other person and
the offender must hold such property in trust for
such other person or for his benefit. The relevant
observations read as under: -
"27. In the instant case, a serious dispute has
been raised by the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties as to whether on the face of
the allegations, an offence of criminal breach of
trust is constituted or not. In our view, the
expression "entrusted with property" or "with any
dominion over property" has been used in a wide
sense in Section 405 IPC. Such expression includes
all cases in which goods are entrusted, that is,
voluntarily handed over for a specific purpose and
dishonestly disposed of in violation of law or in
violation of contract. The expression 'entrusted'
appearing in Section 405 IPC is not necessarily a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
term of law. It has wide and different implications
in different contexts. It is, however, necessary that
the ownership or beneficial interest in
the ownership of the property entrusted in respect
of which offence is alleged to have been committed
must be in some person other than the accused
and the latter must hold it on account of some
person or in some way for his benefit. The
expression 'trust' in Section 405 IPC is a
comprehensive expression and has been used to
denote various kinds of relationships like the
relationship of trustee and beneficiary, bailor and
bailee, master and servant, pledger and pledgee.
When some goods are hypothecated by a person to
another person, the ownership of the goods still
remains with the person who has hypothecated
such goods. The property in respect of which
criminal breach of trust can be committed must
necessarily be the property of some person other
than the accused or the beneficial interest in or
ownership of it must be in the other person and the
offender must hold such property in trust for such
other person or for his benefit. In a case of pledge,
the pledged article belongs to some other person
but the same is kept in trust by the pledgee. [...]"
(Emphasis supplied)
35. The aforesaid exposition of law makes it clear
that there should be some entrustment of property
to the accused wherein the ownership is not
transferred to the accused. In case of sale of
movable property, although the payment may be
deferred yet the property in the goods passes on
delivery as per Sections 20 and 24 respectively of
the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
"20. Specific goods in a deliverable state. -- Where
there is an unconditional contract for the sale of
specific goods in a deliverable state, the property
in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract
is made and it is immaterial whether the time of
payment of the price or the time of delivery of
goods, or both, is postponed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
xxx xxx xxx
24. Goods sent on approval or "on sale or return".
-- When goods are delivered to the buyer on
approval or "on sale or return" or other similar
terms, the property therein passes to the buyer--
(a) when he signifies his approval or acceptance to
the seller or does any other act adopting the
transaction;
(b) if he does not signify his approval or acceptance
to the seller but retains the goods without giving
notice of rejection, then, if a time has been fixed for
the return of the goods on the expiration of such
time, and, if no time has been fixed, on the
expiration of a reasonable time."
36. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any
doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the
property passes to the purchaser from the seller
when the goods are delivered. Once the property in
the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be
said that the purchaser was entrusted with the
property of the seller. Without entrustment of
property, there cannot be any criminal breach of
trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of
criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the
consideration amount in case of sale of goods is
flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for
the non-payment of the consideration amount, but
no criminal case will be maintainable for it.
[See : Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171
& Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel
Ltd.) and Others v. State of Jharkhand and
Another :2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301]
37. The case at hand falls in category No. 1 as laid
in Smt. Nagawwa (supra) referred to in para 7 of
this judgment.
38. If it is the case of the complainant that a
particular amount is due and payable to him then
he should have filed a civil suit for recovery of the
amount against the appellants herein. But he
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
could not have gone to the court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate by filing a complaint of
cheating and criminal breach of trust.
39. It appears that till this date, the complainant
has not filed any civil suit for recovery of the
amount which according to him is due and
payable to him by the appellants. He seems to
have prima facie lost the period of limitation for
filing such a civil suit.
40. In such circumstances referred to above, the
continuation of the criminal proceeding would be
nothing but abuse of the process of law.
41. Before we close this matter, we would like to
say something as regards the casual approach of
the courts below in cases like the one at hand.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was the official
Criminal Code in the Republic of India inherited
from the British India after independence.
The IPC came into force in the sub-continent during
the British rule in 1862. The IPC remained in force
for almost a period of 162 years until it was
repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita ("BNS") in December 2023 which came
into effect on 1st July 2024. It is indeed very sad
to note that even after these many years, the
courts have not been able to understand the fine
distinction between criminal breach of trust and
cheating."
15. In case of Sanjay Srivastava Vs. State of Maharashtra
allied matters 2025 (0) JX (SC) 578, held that mere breach of
contract does not amount to criminal offence unless fraudulent
intention is established from outset.
16. Applying aforesaid ratio, in the present case, FIR appears
to be complete misuse of power, as complainant, by using
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
criminal proceeding intended to recover outstanding amount of
good sold.
17. This Court may gainfully refer to the following observations
of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
[1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335], and the law laid down therein has
been consistently followed. In para 102, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under :-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14934/2013 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) 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."
18. In wake of above reasons, the petition deserves
consideration and accordingly, it is allowed. The impugned FIR
registered as C.R.No.I-90 of 2011 registered with Madhavpura
Police Station, Ahmedabad and further proceedings arising
thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner
herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
AHS
