Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.K. Goyal vs Smt. Bharti Jain on 8 January, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
1 MCRC-39106-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39106 of 2022
S.K. GOYAL AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. BHARTI JAIN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Agrawal - Advocate for petitioners,
Shri S.K. Sharma - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking
quashment of the order dated 11-02-2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Sagar in RCT No.406/2021 (Smt. Bharti Jain vs. S.K. Goel and
others) by which the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint
against the petitioners. Further, the order passed by the revisional Court, i.e.
the Court of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Cr.R. No.25/2021 (S.K.
Goel and others vs. Smt. Bharti Jain), dated 20-07-2022 whereby the revision
preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed, is also the subject-matter of
assail in the present petition.
2. The counsel for the petitioners contends that the
respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for brevity "the CrPC") before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Sagar on 02-09-2006. Statements of the complainant were
recorded on 22-09-2007, and the statement of the husband and complainant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
2 MCRC-39106-2022
was recorded on 31-10-2007. Thereafter, the complaint remained pending
for a period of more than 10 years and again, statements of both the persons
were recorded on 30-11-2017.
3. On the basis of the statements the trial Court while taking
cognizance of the complaint issued the process. The order of issuing process
dated 11-02-2021 was assailed by filing a revision, however, the revisional
Court dismissed the revision. Thus, assailing the order passed by the
revisional Court as well as trial Court, this petition has been filed.
4. The counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were
running a company, namely, M/s Bonanza Stock Broker Limited. The
complainant opened a Demat account to deal in sale and purchase of shares
with the Company i.e. M/s Bonanza Stock Broker Limited. According to the
complainant, she deposited certain amounts which are detailed in paragraph
No.5 of the memorandum of petition. According to the complainant, the
complainant deposited Rs.6,71,510/- with the M/s Bonanza Stock Broker
Limited. Later on, the said Company was merged with Bonanza Portfolio
Limited and the merger was not intimated to the complainant, and the
amount of investment was unauthorizedly transferred to new entity i.e.
Bonanza Portfolio Limited. There was manipulation in the documents viz.
trade confirmation slips, bill contract etc.
5. The counsel for the petitioners contends that the complainant did not
approach the Court with clean hands, inasmuch as there are Guidelines
issued by the Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which contain
the provisions for Investors grievance redressal mechanism. As per the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
3 MCRC-39106-2022
Guidelines, dated 06-11-2020 (Annexure-P/9), there are provisions for
reference of dispute to arbitration and there is stock exchange arbitration
mechanism. In terms of the said Clause, a dispute was raised by the
respondent/complainant before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed an
award dated 01-03-2016 (Annexure-A/10). As per the award, the Arbitrator
though observed that there was no fraudulent action, but concluded that the
present petitioners somewhere misguided the complainant by not providing
documents in time, and thus, held that the complainant was entitled for a
compensation of Rs,2,31,000/-.
6. The award passed by the Arbitrator was assailed by the M/s
Bonanza Portfolio Limited as well as the complainant before a Three-
Members Board. The Appellate Board, ultimately vide order contained in
Annexure-A/11, set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator while holding
that the claim was barred by limitation.
7. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant approached the Second
Additional District Judge, Sagar by way of an application under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity "the Act of 1996).
The said application was also dismissed vide order dated 22-02-2017. The
counsel contends that it is evident till 22-02-2017, the Arbitrator had decided
the dispute. There was an order of the Appellate Board and also an order
passed by the District Court under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. But, the
complainant and her witnesses while giving their statements on 30-11-2017
under Section 200 of the CrPC, nowhere disclosed the factum regarding
passing of the Award by the Arbitrator or the award passed by the Appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
4 MCRC-39106-2022
Board, and also the order passed by the District Court.
8 . It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that in such case,
the order of issuing process is unsustainable. The counsel submits that in
terms of the provisions of Section 468 of the CrPC, cognizance of the
complaint could not have taken, being barred by limitation. The counsel also
contends that in the present case, the Directors have been impleaded in the
complaint, but the Company has not been impleaded. Therefore, in absence
of Company, the prosecution of the petitioners is unsustainable.
9 . To substantiate his submissions the learned counsel has placed
reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Susela Padmavathy Amma
vs. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, [Special Petition (Criminal) No.12390-12391
of 2022, dated 15-03-2024], S.K. Goel and others vs. The State of
Jharkhand and another, (Cr.M.P. No.750 of 2021, decided on 12-07-2022),
Saubir Bhattacharya and others vs. Jai Prakash Kori & anr., ILR [2008] M.P.,
1849; Vinod Natgesan vs. The State of Kerala, 2019(1) ANJ (SC) 287;
Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. & Ors. vs. Mr. Anand Bangad & Ors., ILR [2008] MP
600 . The counsel contends that in identical circumstances the High Court of
Jharkhand has observed that the complaint was not maintainable, as the
Company was not impleaded. The Court further observed that the dispute
was not of criminal nature.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
present petition is liable to be dismissed. The complainant while filing the
complaint made categorical averments that an amount of Rs.67510/- invested
by the complainant, was misused. She was not informed about the merger of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
5 MCRC-39106-2022
the Company. The complainant was never aware about the merger of M/s
Bonanza Stock Broker Limited in Bonanza Portfolio Limited , nor the
complainant had ever opened the account in the said Company. It was
specifically stated in paragraph No.8, that trade confirmation slip, bill of
contract note and account statement were not supplied, as they were
manipulated.
11. It is contended by the counsel for the respondents that the
statement of the complainant and witnesses were recorded in support of the
complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC, and accordingly, the Court has
issued process. It is contended by the counsel that at the time of issuing
process, the Court only required to see that prima facie complaint discloses
commission of the offence. The Court is not required to subject the
allegations to meticulous scrutiny, and in such circumstances, the order
issuing the process having been passed in terms of sections 203 and 204 of
the CrPC, no interference with the same is warranted.
12. To buttress his submissions the learned counsel for the respondent
has placed reliance on J.R.D. Tata, Chairman, Tata Iron and Steal Co. Ltd.
etc. vs. Mrs. Payal Kumar and antother, 1987 CrLJ 447; Jia Lal Sharma,
New Delhi vs. The State and another, 1982 CrLJ 1913; and Tarkeshwar
Singh vs. State of Bihar and anotner, 2007 CrLJ 1281.
13. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
perused the records.
14. A perusal of the records reflects that the respondent/complainant
approached the Court by filing a complaint alleging inter alia that, she had
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
6 MCRC-39106-2022
opened a Demat account in order to sale and purchase shares with M/s
Bonanza Stock Broker Limited and during the course of transaction the
complainant had invested Rs.6,17,510/-. The said amount so invested by the
present complainant was misused by the respondents by investing the same
with Bonanza Portfolio Limited. As per the averments the complainant had
never opened any account with Bonanza Portfolio Limited. The complaint,
undisputedly, was filed on 04-09-2006 which is evident from Annexure-A/1.
15. After filing of the complaint, on 22-09-2007 the statement of the
complainant was recorded. Thereafter, it appears that the complaint case
remained pending, and in the meantime, the complainant approached the
Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed an award on 01-03-2016. The award
passed by the Arbitrator reflects that the same grievance which is highlighted
in the complaint, was raised before the Arbitrator by the present petitioners.
The statement of the case has been reproduced in paragraph No.3.01 of the
award of the Arbitrator dated 01-03-2016. Identical stand was taken by the
complainant, that she had never invested money in the Bonanza Portfolio
Limited. There was no prior notice or approval from the complainant
regarding the said transfer. All the allegations were discussed in paragraph
No.3.04 of the award passed by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator then in
paragraph No.5 of the award concluded as under :
"Observations and findings
After considering all facts following observations and findings
have been drawn:
5.01. Considering statement of case submitted by applicant it has
been observed that applicant had opened her trading account with
Bonanza Stock Broker Ltd. in the year 2005. The applicant's
allegation is that the company never provided any documents well
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
7 MCRC-39106-2022
within time and as per rules and regulations, therefore, in absence
of genuine documents she was unaware of transactions done
through her account and the company has misutilized her funds.
In this context it is observed that the respondent has caused to
produce documents only after order given in IGRP meeting.
It is to be noted here that respondent produced documents on order
of IGRP but before this, there are no instances quoted and no
proofs given by respondent that the documents were provided well
in time before and as per rules and regulations. the applicant has
further stated that she never had contention to invest her money in
NSE segment and opened her account with trading member to
trade in BSE segment only, but the respondent produced the
member client agreement to open account in NSE segment, which
has been signed by the applicant. It is pertinent to note that the
agreement is not filled properly i.e. no date and place are
mentioned anywhere in the form, therefore, the documents cannot
be said genuine and authenticated.
Further on receiving document documents the applicant denied all
of them saying that the documents are produced fraudulently and
are misguiding the exchange. In confirmation slips, contract note,
Demat statement, Account statement relating to account opened
by Investor, the documents were submitted to NSE on 21-09-
2015. It is further pertinent to note that the documents are not
sufficient and appropriate but they cannot be said wholly
fraudulent. The allegation is not maintainable in absence of
appropriate answers and proofs.
5.02. Further the respondent in his statement of defence has stated
that arbitration application of the applicant is barred by limitation
of period as per the Bye-laws of NSE. In this context it is to be
noted that the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the
applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake with reasonable
diligence.
As discussed above, the applicant was not receiving documents
and she was unaware of the transactions done in her account. On
non receipt of documents she undergone through legal
proceedings and filed her complaint in various courts starting
from year 2005 i.e. within 6-7 months. The applicant then
received her documents after the order given in IGRP meeting in
the year 2015. Further the applicant filed her application to
Exchange to annul the order given in IGRP meeting. It therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
8 MCRC-39106-2022
can be concluded that limitation of period shall not apply here.
5.03. As per applicants' personal records she had deposited a total
amount of Rs.671510/- till 18/02/2006 for trading in BSE segment
and had placed order to purchase shares amounting to Rs.659381/-
but as shown in her statement of account there was debit balance
of Rs.2510.41/- as on 18/02/2006. After this date applicant had
not made any payment to company for trade.
During the period from August 2005 to Feb 2006, there are found
events of transferring amount from BSE to NSE segment on
various dates:
Date Amount
18/11/2005 4000.00
30/11/2005 50000.00
23/01/2006 55000.00
23/01/2006 122000.00
It is also noted that the company Bonanza Stock Broker
Ltd. got merged with Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. on
31/07/2006 but the company has transferred applicant's
fund in NSE before this date without any intimation to
applicant.
After considering all facts and figures it can be drawn
that the respondent somewhere misguided the applicant
by not providing documents well in time. Furthermore,
in IGRP meeting the respondent was directed to provide
documents namely - Trade confirmation slips, contract
notes, Demat statements, Account statement relating to
account opened by investor, in case of non-submission
of documents the investor will be entitled to receive
claim of Rs.671510/-. The respondent then provided
the documents but the same were not as ordered. as
stated in statement of defence of respondent in para-16,
page 19 that complete records have already been
submitted to NSE on 21/09/2015 through courier as per
directions issued by the IGRP vide order dated 16-09-
2015. Therefore, it is concluded that the respondent has
precluded themselves to produce any records in further
legal proceedings.
It is to be noted that respondent had transferred amount
of Rs.23100/- to NSE segment and the remaining
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
9 MCRC-39106-2022
amount of Rs.440510 is invested in BSE only.
Therefore, considering the IGRP orders and the above
fact the claim amount of Rs.440510 has not been
considered out total claim amount of Rs.671510/-."
[Emphasis supplied]
16. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph of the award passed buy the
Arbitrator reflects that, the grievance of the complainant was that she was
not supplied the documents. The present petitioners produced the documents
in the Investors Grievance Redressal (IGRP) meeting. The Arbitrator
concluded that, there were documents i.e. trade confirmation slip, contract
note, Demat statement and account statement relating to the account opened
by investor. Documents were submitted to the NSE on 21-09-2015. The
Arbitrator also concluded that, the documents though were not sufficient and
appropriate, but could not be said to be fraudulent. The allegations were
found to be unsustainable, in absence of appropriate answers and proof.
17. The Arbitrator then observed in paragraph No.5.03, that the
present petitioners somewhere misguided the complainant by not providing
the documents well in time. The award passed by the Arbitrator was later on
assailed by the M/s Bonanza Portfolio Limited as well as the complainant in
appeal before the Appellate Board. The Appellate Board set aside the award
passed by the Arbitrator. Later on, the complainant also approached the
concerned District Court by way of filing an application under Section 34 of
the Act of 1996, but the said application was also dismissed, vide order dated
22-02-2017.
18. It is further important to take note, that apart from the Arbitrator,
the complainant had also approached District Consumer Dispute Redressal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
10 MCRC-39106-2022
Forum, which vide order dated 24-04-2009 had dismissed the claim of the
complainant. Thereafter, an appeal filed before the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, was also dismissed for want of prosecution, vide
order contained in Annexure-A/14.
19. It is thus, clear that when the complainant and her witnesses had
entered in witness box to give statement in terms of Section 200 of the CrPC
subsequently on 30-11-2017, the complainant was well aware about the
subsequent proceedings which were taken recourse to before the Arbitrator,
Appellate Board and the District Court under the provisions of the Act of
1996. The entire statement of the complainant and her husband recorded on
30-11-2017, is conspicuously silent regarding entire proceedings pertaining
to arbitration. The complainant and her husband, who had entered in witness
box on 30-11-2017, were required to disclose the entire facts, inasmuch as in
the statement dated 30-11-2017, it was stated by the complainant that she
was not supplied any document pertaining to the investment in shares and
identical statement was made by the husband of the complainant in his
testimony. But, it is evident from perusal of the paragraph No.5 of the
award, that the said documents were provided in the IGRP meeting. The
Arbitrator in the award though, which was set aside subsequently, had clearly
observed that the documents were not fraudulent.
20. The complainant and the witness were required to disclose the
aforesaid facts, while giving statements under Section 200 of the CrPC on
30-11-2017, as during the period of 10 years of pendency of the complaint
before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, subsequent events
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
11 MCRC-39106-2022
had taken place. The trial Court was further required to ascertain as to
whether the dispute was of civil nature or not, and there was different
mechanism for redressal of dispute providing avenue for arbitration.
21. The said aspect has been taken into consideration by the Jharkhand
High Court, Ranchi in the case of S.K. Goel (supra), which in paragraph
Nos.15,26,27 and 28 held as under :
"15. He submits that for the similar facts and circumstances in the
case of Angel Broking Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat, reported in
(2018) SCC Online Guj 3772, it was found that there is not
criminality held and the penal Sections i.e. 406 and 420 of
the Indian Penal Code were not attracted. Paras- 2.1, 14 and 15 of
the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-
"2.1 Complainant No. 2 filed private complaint with the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court at Jamnagar, alleging that, respondent
No. 2 was having share trading and demat account with the
applicant company. It is alleged that on account of the recession in
the market, without prior permission of the respondent No. 2, the
complainant company sold off the shares of complainant at a very
low price, thereby causing loss to the complainant and to recover
such loss, the applicant company issued false bills for recovery of
an amount of Rs. 2,96,000/-. It is also alleged in the complaint that
the complainant has mentioned transactions from 08.05.2006 to
22.05.2006, wherein, according to the complainant, shares were
purchased at high price and were disposed off at a very low price
that too from the account of the complainant and behind the back
of the complainant.
14. Having examined the relevant documents on record,
the Court comes to the conclusion that the transfer of
shares which took place on National Stock Exchange by
the applicant company on behalf of the respondent No.
2 is in response to the due course of its business and
inconformity with the agreement between the parties.
The Criminal case therefore, registered subsequently
appears to be an afterthought with a view to overcome
the liability of the respondent No. 2, which has arisen
out of the transactions. It is also found that though
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
12 MCRC-39106-2022
under the agreement clause, the remedy to resolve the
dispute is made, including filing a complaint with the
SEBI, the respondent No. 2 has not resorted to such
remedy and has thought it fit criminal proceedings,
which in the opinion of the Court, is clear abuse of
process of law.
15. The perusal of the criminal complaint, suggest that
on the very same day, learned Magistrate has passed
order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. directing
registration of the F.I.R. Contents of the complaint do
not reveal to 5 so as to attract provisions of Sections
406, 408 and 420 of the I.P.C. There is no allegations to
suggest that any of the applicants had misrepresented
before the complainant so as to influence her decision
to enter into the transaction. In fact, there is no
allegation that the complainant had ever met the
applicants in connection with any of the share
transactions. The principles of vicarious liability cannot
be invoked in the facts of the present case."
26. Looking into the FIR, it is crystal clear that the
company is not made an accused and the petitioner Nos.
1 to 4 are the Directors of the company and there is no
direct allegation or any whisper against the Directors of
mala fide. Law is well settled that if a wrong has been
done by a company, the representative of the wrong
doer can be proceeded with, where the company is
made a party, which is lacking in the case in hand. The
entire allegation and the mechanism of SEBI with
regard to such dispute suggest that this case is civil in
nature. There is no doubt that criminal proceedings and
civil proceedings can go on simultaneously if there are
allegations of criminality and it is proved both the cases
can go simultaneously, however, it is well settled that if
the criminality is not made out, the continuation of
criminal case will amount to an abuse of the process of
law.
27. In view of the above facts and in the entire totality
of the matter, considering the arguments of both the
sides and for the reasons and analysis, it is a fit case to
exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
28. Accordingly, the FIR as well as the entire criminal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
13 MCRC-39106-2022
proceeding, arising out of an FIR in connection with
Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 136 of 2020, registered
under Sections 420, 406 / 34 / 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, are hereby quashed."
22. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Jharkhand High Court
reflects that, it was the case filed by the applicant only and under the
identical circumstances, the Jharkhand High Court proceeded to quash the
complaint. The Jharkhand High Court also considered the aspect that under
the agreement clause, there was remedy to resolve the dispute by taking
recourse to an alternative redressal forum. The Court further observed that
the Company was not impleaded, therefore, the other Directors could not
have been implicated by invoking the principles of vicarious liability.
23. In the present case also, the Company has not been impleaded by
the complainant in the complaint. The complainant neither impleaded the
M/s Bonamnza Stock Broker Limited nor the M/s Bonanza Portfolio
Limited. Thus, the trial Court was expected to at least apply its mind to the
contents of the complainant, in order to find out as to whether any offence
was committed or, a dispute arising out of the contract was being sought to
be given the colour of criminality.
24. The Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of
Uttarakhand [(2013) 11 SCC 673] held in paragraph 12 as under:-
"While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used
sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends
upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential
ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged
by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
14 MCRC-39106-2022
also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether
a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available
and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High
Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent
abuse of process of court."
[Emphasis supplied]
25. The Apex Court in the case of Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P.
[(2021) 14 SCC 626] held in paragraph 33 as under:-
"In this case, it appears that criminal proceedings are being taken
recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser. It is
reiterated at the cost of repetition that the FIR does not disclose
any offence so far as the appellant is concerned. There is no
whisper of how and in what manner, this appellant is involved in
any criminal offence and the charge-sheet, the relevant part
whereof has been extracted above, is absolutely vague. There can
be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC should be
used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a
complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature
of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a
criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High
Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil
transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has,
however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been
given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High
Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held
by this Court in Paramjeet Batra [Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 76]
extracted above.
[Emphasis supplied]
26. The Apex Court in the case of Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West
Bengal [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 90] held in paragraph 17 ruled thus:-
"In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in
respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the
respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by
instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with
respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is
to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against
the appellants. The indisputable facts that the respondent has filed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
15 MCRC-39106-2022
the pending title suit in the year 2015, he got no case that he
obtained an interim relief against his removal from the office of
Secretary of the School Managing Committee as also the
trusteeship, that he filed the stated application for an order for
investigation only in April, 2017 together with absence of a case
that despite such removal he got a right to get informed of the
affairs of the school and also the trust, would only support the said
conclusion. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view
that this case invites invocation of the power under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the
Magistrate Court in the afore-stated application and all further
proceeding in pursuance thereof. Also, we have no hesitation to
hold that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings
against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances would result
in abuse of the process of Court and also in miscarriage of
justice."
[Emphasis supplied]
27. The Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar & Anr. vs. State of
Karnataka & Anr. [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 268] held in paragraph 8 as
under:-
"Essentially, the present dispute between the parties relates to a
breach of contract. A mere breach of contract, by one of the
parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every
case, as held by this Court in Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and
Anr. (2023) 5 SCC 360. Similarly, dealing with the distinction
between the offence of cheating and a mere breach of contractual
obligations, this Court, in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of
Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293, has held that every breach of contract
would not give rise to the offence of cheating, and it is required to
be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at
the time of making the promise."
[Emphasis supplied]
28. The Apex Court in Mahmood Ali and others vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 in para-13 ruled thus :
"13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty
to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from
the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:789
16 MCRC-39106-2022
be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the
lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself
only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account
the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of
the case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs
have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background
of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out
of private or personal grudge as alleged."
29. Hence, in view of the preceding analysis, as the complaint
contains the allegations of not providing the documents to the complainant
and those documents were made available to the complainant in the IGRP
meeting which is prima facie evident from the perusal of the Award passed
by the Arbitrator. Thus on the strength of the prima facie incorrect statement,
dated 30-11-2017, recorded under Section 200 of the CrPC, no process could
have been issued by the trial Court.
30. Ex-consequenti, the petition stands allowed. The order dated 11-
02-2021 passed by the trial Court and also the impugned order dated 20-07-
2022 passed by the revisional Court stand set aside.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
