[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Sikkim High Court
Bijay Chamling vs State Of Sikkim on 6 March, 2026
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl. M. C. No.03 of 2024
Petitioner : Bijay Chamling
versus
Respondent : State of Sikkim
Application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Eklovya Nagpal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Thinlay
Dorjee Bhutia, Public Prosecutor, Mr. K. T. Bhutia, Public Prosecutor
(Vigilance) and Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for
the Respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing : 06-03-2026
Date of Order : 06-03-2026
Date of Uploading : 06-03-2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The allegation in the FIR bearing No.03/2020, dated 03-
01-2020, against the Petitioner is that an advance of ₹
1,77,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and seventy seven lakhs) only,
was made to the Petitioner's firm by the Sikkim State Co-operative
Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (hereinafter, the
"SIMFED"), for supply of computer sets to various school of the
State. The Petitioner supplied 95 computers out of the order for
supply of 364 computers. On non-supply of the remaining
computers, a legal Notice was sent to the Petitioner's firm to
complete the supply or refund the advance amount made to him,
along with penal interest. However, despite having received the
legal Notice the Petitioner failed to either supply the computer sets
Bijay Chamling vs. State of Sikkim
or refund the amount. Hence, the FIR against the Petitioner under
Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the case is of a civil
nature and the Complainant ought to have filed a civil suit for
recovery of money against the Petitioner. That, the FIR was
therefore wrongly registered against the Petitioner, before the
concerned police station to merely harass and humiliate the
Petitioner. The question of the Petitioner trying to cheat the
Complainant by committing breach of trust does not arise in any
event. Admittedly, the entire supply of the computer sets was not
made, only ninety-five computer sets were supplied. It is also an
admitted position that the refund demanded by the SIMFED for non-
supply of computers was also not made by the Petitioner,
nevertheless, the matter does not have a criminal bearing and the
FIR deserves to be quashed.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General objecting to the
submissions advanced by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that, the matter squarely falls under the provisions of the
criminal law as cited in the FIR. A supplementary Charge-sheet has
been filed yesterday before the Learned Trial Court and the matter
has been fixed for hearing on Charge. In view of the facts as laid
out in the FIR and the Charge-sheet the Petition deserves to be
rejected.
5. After giving due consideration to the competing
submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties, I deem it relevant to
mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elucidated in
Bijay Chamling vs. State of Sikkim
Rikhab Birani and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another the
difference between breach of contract and a criminal offence of
cheating. Having perused the FIR (supra), at this juncture I cannot
bring myself to hold that the FIR fails to reveal a prima facie case
against the Petitioner to enable this Court to exercise its discretion
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petition
accordingly stands rejected.
(i) However, it is clarified that the Learned Trial Court shall
not be prejudiced by the instant Order of this Court during the time
of the hearing on Charge and shall arrive at an independent finding
based on the submissions advanced before it and the documents on
record.
6. Crl. M. C. No.03 of 2024 disposed of.
7. Copy of this Order be transmitted to the Learned Trial
Court for information.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
06-03-2026
Approved for reporting : Yes
sdl
2025 SCC OnLine SC 823
