Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 420 and 409 r/w. s.34 – Appellant alleged that he supplied cotton lint to a Mill for conversion into yarn, however, all the respondents-accused connived with each other and sold entire lint and appropriated the sale proceeds – Complaint was filed by the appellant – FIR was registered u/ss. 420 and
409 r/w. s.34 of IPC on basis of appellant’s complaint – Respondent Nos. 2 to 13 filed petition u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR – High Court quashed the FIR on the grounds that the appellant had withdrawn an earlier complaint without assigning reasons, the transaction being commercial in nature, the ingredients of the offences alleged were absent; and that the remedy lay in filing a civil suit – Propriety of – Held: Where the accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint – Furthermore, it was not a case of breach of contract simplicitor but there were serious allegations of forgery of documents, use of blank letter-head, papers and cheque leaves of the appellant – In instant case, there were allegations which prima facie constituted ingredients of offences u/ss. 420, 409 and 34 of IPC in complaint – The correctness of the allegations could be adjudged only at the trial when evidence is adduced – Also, mentioning of reasons for withdrawal of an earlier complaint is also not a condition precedent for maintaining a second complaint – Thus, High Court erred in law in dismissing the complaint which certainly disclosed an offence prima facie.
DISTT. CRIME BRANCH, SALEM, T.N.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Where the accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. [Para 32][837-F-G]
2. Every breach of contract does not give rise to an offence of cheating. The language and tenor of Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd., particularly, the observation that breach of contract would give rise to an offence of cheating only in those cases where there was any deception played at the very inception, is to be understood in the context of the facts of that case and accordingly construed. The phrase “in those cases where there was any deception played at the very inception” cannot be read out of context. This is not a case of breach of contract simplicitor but there are serious allegations of forgery of documents, use of blank letter-head, papers and cheque leaves of the appellant. [Para 36][838-E-G]
3. In this case, there were clear allegations of fraud and cheating which prima facie constitute offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The correctness of the allegations can be adjudged only at the trial when evidence is adduced. At this stage, it was not for the High Court to enter into factual arena and decide whether the allegations were correct or whether the same were a counter-blast to any proceedings initiated by the respondents. [Para 37][838-H; 839-A-B]
4. In Jatinder Singh, this Court clearly held that if dismissal of the complaint was not on merit, but on default of the complainant, moving the Magistrate again with a second complaint on the same facts is maintainable. But if the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code was on merits, the position could be different. [Para 38][839-B-C]
5. The failure to mention the first complaint in the subsequent one is also inconsequential as held, in effect, in Jatinder Singh. Mentioning of reasons for withdrawal of an earlier complaint is also not a condition precedent for maintaining a second complaint. The High Court clearly erred in law in dismissing the complaint, which certainly disclosed an offence prima facie. [Para 39][839-D]
Jatinder Singh and Others v. Ranjit Kaur 2001 (2) SCC
570 : [2001] 1 SCR 707 ; Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 293 – relied on.
Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 130 : [2011] 13 SCR 247 ; Pramatha Nath
Talukdar and Anr. v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 297 ; Poonam Chand Jain and Anr. v. Fazru (2010) 2 SCC 631 : [2010] 2 SCR
109 ; M/s. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanyakumar and Another (1992) 4 SCC 15 ; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited and Ors v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another 2005 (1) SCC 122 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 790 ; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 387 ; Mridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168 : [2000] 2 SCR 859 ; State of Punjab v. Subhash Kumar and Ors. (2004) 13 SCC
437 ; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors. (1992)
4 SCC 305 : [1992] 1 Suppl. SCR 226 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.