Criminal law – Essential ingredients for offence under Section
420 of IPC – Question of mens rea does not arise for a juristic person:
Held: The FIR must disclose the following ingredients to make out an offence u/s.420 : (i) That the Accused has induced anyone since inception; (ii) That the inducement was fraudulent or dishonest;
(iii) That mens rea existed at the time of such inducement. The Accused/Bank is a jurisdiction person, and as such, the question of mens rea does not arise. However, on reading of the F.I.R., there is nothing to show that the Accused/Bank or its staff members had dishonestly induced someone to deceived to deliver any property to any person, and that the mens rea existed at the time of such inducement – Thus, the ingredients to attract the offence u/s.420 I.P.C. would not be available. [Paras 20 and 21] Criminal law – Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of FIR – Prima facie inquiry as to whether the ingredients of the offence in the FIR are made out or not.
Criminal law – Essential ingredients for offence under Section 406, 409 and 462 of IPC:
Held: The following ingredients will have to be made out for the offence u/s.409 I.P.C. – (a) That there has been any entrustment with the property, or with any dominion over property on a person in the capacity of a public servant or banker, etc.; (b) That the said person commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property – For bringing out the case under criminal breach of trust, it will have to be pointed out that a person, with whom entrustment of a property is made, has dishonestly misappropriated it, or converted it to his own use, or dishonestly used it, or disposed of that property – In the present case, there is no allegation of entrustment of property which the Accused/Bank has misappropriated, and thus, the provisions of Section 406 and 409 I.P.C. are not applicable – Since there was no entrustment of any property with the Accused/Bank, the ingredients of Section 462 I.P.C. are also not applicable. [Paras 22 to 25] Criminal Law – Quashing of F.I.R.:
Held: Relied upon the Judgment in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : 1990 INSC
363 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335, wherein it was held that an F.I.R. can be quashed where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, or where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence. [Paras 28 and 29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Vidhi Thaker, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.