Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Nensi Bhai And Ors vs State And Anr on 9 April, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:16554]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3172/2014
1. Nensi Bhai S/o Shri Laddha Shah, Age 54 years
2. Tlakshi Lakhamji Nandu S/o Shri Lakhamji Bhai, Age 66 years
3. Kumar Bhai S/o Shri Panchalal Shah, Age 54 years
4. Paresh Bhai S/o Shri Kanji Bhai Shah, Age 44 years
5. Himanshu Bhai S/o Shri Manhar Lal Vagani, Age 40 years
All R/o Euro Ceramics Ltd. 208, Sangam Archade, Vallabh Bhai
Road, Vile Parle, Mumbai West.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Babu Lal S/o Shri Baksha Ram Khadam, R/o Luniyawas, Tehsil
Merta City, District Nagaur. Presently R/o Pandit Deendayal
Upadhyay Colony, Merta City, District Nagaur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JayRam Saran
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
Mr. Ravindra Singh, AGA
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. RS Choudhary
Mr. J.K. Suthar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON : 08/01/2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 09/04/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal miscellaneous petition,
challenge is made to the very lodging of the FIR No.80/2014 of
Police Station, Merta City, District Nagaur for the offence under
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (2 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]
Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(“IPC“).
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the complainant,
respondent no. 2, submitted a report alleging that his brother,
engaged in the sale and mining of China Clay under the firm
“Vasudeo Minerals and Chemicals,” supplied China Clay to the
petitioners. The petitioners, who are directors of “Euro Ceramics
Ltd.” situated in Bhachau, Gujarat, contacted the complainant for
the supply of China Clay for manufacturing ceramic tiles. An oral
agreement was executed in October 2012 at the complainant’s
office in Jodhpur Chowki, Merta City, wherein it was decided to
supply China Clay at Rs. 635 per ton with a transportation fare of
Rs. 1200 per ton through “M/s. Adarsh Transport Company.” The
petitioners paid an advance of Rs. 4,50,000 and assured payment
upon receipt of the goods. The complainant continuously supplied
China Clay, and due to price escalation, the rate was later
increased to Rs. 675 per ton. The complainant supplied
approximately 8900 tons of China Clay, which the petitioners used
for manufacturing and selling tiles but failed to pay the due
amount of Rs. 1,67,03,370 (Rs. 78,16,335 for the clay and Rs.
88,87,035 for transportation). Despite repeated demands, the
petitioners neither paid the outstanding amount nor returned the
supplied goods. On 26.09.2013, when the complainant visited the
petitioners’ office in Mumbai to demand the payment, they
assured him of depositing the amount in his bank account, but no
payment was made. Consequently, the petitioners were accused of
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (3 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]
cheating and criminal breach of trust, leading to the registration of
FIR.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned
Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the FIRs impugned
along with other material made available to this Court.
4. After perusing the record and pondering upon the
submissions and materials made available to the Court, prima
facie, it is revealed that the matter relates to a dispute regarding
business transaction which was between two companies related to
outstanding amount. It is not the case of prosecution that the
complainant has been duped under a fallacious transaction as
there is no sufficient material available which proves the same. Be
that as it may, nothing concrete is available on record so as to
presume that petitioners have intentionally grabbed the goods and
money and now not willing to return to the complainants.
5. This Court has dealt with the similar issue in the case of
Rosaiah Yeluri and Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan and Ors. [S.B.
Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3469/2018]. For ready reference, the
relevant paragraphs of the order are reproduced herein below:-
“12) Here, the question for adjudication before this Court
comes that whether the act alleged by the complainant in
the FIRs above is sufficient enough to constitute an offence
under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC and further
question to be considered by this Court that whether a
petition for quashing of the FIR and stifle of investigation
can be maintained on the grounds raised here in these
petitions.
13) This Court feels that the courts are meant to impart
justice and for that purpose alone it is established. From the
very day of its establishment, it acquires and possesses all
the powers needed to impart justice and as such for the
purpose of dispensation of justice, it can exercise the(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (4 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]inherent powers vested in it. The express provision under
Section 482 CrPC only recognizes and preserves the powers
which are inherent and imbibed in the courts for the
purpose of achieving the ends of justice as well as for the
purpose of preventing or thwarting the abuse of process of
law. Whether the High Court in its inherent power which is
expressly recognized under Section 482 CrPC can quash a
criminal complaint or an FIR has very elaborately and wisely
been enunciated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case
of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and
Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, Hon’ble the Supreme
Court has expounded elaborately the canvass of the issue
relating to quashing of the FIR. For the ready reference,
the relevant part of the judgment is reproduced herein
below: –
105…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 extra-ordinary 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 channelized and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
i. 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.
ii. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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.
iii. 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 a case against
the accused.
iv. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.
v. 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.
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (5 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]
vi. 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.
vii. 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.
The matter in hand falls under first, second, third and fifth
category as mentioned in the Bhajan Lal (supra) where it
is stated that the allegations as mentioned in the FIR does
not prima facie form or constitute any offence against the
accused, allegations in the FIR and other materials
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and 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. The power of quashing could be exercised either
to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice.
14) First, this Court has to examine whether the offence
under Section 406 of the IPC is made out or not. For ready
reference Section 406 of the IPC is reproduced as under: –
Section 406 IPC: Punishment for criminal breach of trust.
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.
A perusal of the provision reflects that to establish the
offence of criminal breach of trust, certain key elements
must be present which includes: (a) fact of entrustment, (b)
dishonest intention and (c) misappropriation or conversion
of property for one’s own use or disposal of the property.
15) In the case of Abhishek Saxena vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of
2023, Decided On: 28.11.2023, Hon’ble the Supreme
Court had stated the ingredients or essentials of Section
406 of the IPC which is Punishment for criminal breach of
trust. The essentials to establish the offence under Section
406 of the IPC are as follows-
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (6 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]
i. There should be entrustment of the property or
dominion over the property against which the charges are
being made.
ii. The person dishonestly misused the property in
violation of the duties committed to that person and
misappropriating or converting it for his own use.
iii. The person dishonestly using or disposing of the
property in violation of any direction of law which prescribes
the mode in which such trust is to be discharge.
iv. Lastly, Section 405 IPC’s elements must be violated.
It is mentioned that in absence of these basic ingredients of
entrustment and dishonest usage or disposal of any
property, an offence of Section 406 of the IPC would not
attract.
16) In the case of The State of Gujarat vs. Jaswantlal
Nathalal, reported in AIR 1968 SC 700, the meaning of
“entrustment” is explained that the person who had
transferred any property or transfer it on their behalf
remains the property owner of that property as per Section
406 of the IPC.
17) In the matter of Usha Chakraborty and Ors. vs.
State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 2023 SC 688,
Hon’ble the Supreme Court had again considered all the
essentials which should be present to invoke the charge
under Section 406 of the IPC.
18) It can be understood that entrustment of the property
by one person to the other is an essential ingredient for
constituting an offence under Section 406 of the IPC. The
said section envisages penalty clause for criminal breach of
trust, definition of which has been given under Section 405
of the IPC. A plain reading of the provision under Section
405 of the IPC manifests that when any person places his
trust in someone for transferring possession of any
property, movable or immovable to someone and that
someone breaches the trust by retaining the property would
come under the ambit of Section 406 of the IPC. Besides
the entrustment of property, the individual must have
personally misused the property in violation of the duties
assigned to that person. In common understanding, a
criminal breach of trust would be committed when the
accused commits an offence regarding the entrusted
property by creating or converting another person’s
property for his own use. Here, the transferee of the
property and transferor establishes a connection in which
the transferor retains the ownership of the property with
him which would mean that even after the transfer of the
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (7 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]
property for a certain period; the transferor would have
custody or control over the property only for the another
person’s benefit or until his desire. It can be said that even
the transfer of property for a limited period to the other
person does not imply the loss of ownership over propriety
rights of the transferor. Entrustment of property
necessitates establishment of fiduciary relationship between
them. In cases pertaining to such category, generally, the
possession of the property is transferred to other person for
a certain period with this promise that whenever the owner
would seek return of the property, the retainer shall
handover back the same to him. If the transferee, instead of
giving back the property to its real owner, uses the same for
his own purpose or converts it for his own use then it would
amount to misappropriation of the property.
19) Here in the present case, the goods were neither
entrusted, misappropriated nor misused or disposed of by
the petitioner for his own use or converted in any manner.
Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution that certain
goods were entrusted to the accused-petitioner but he
refused to give back the same to the complainant his goods
rather converted the property for his own use. Thus, the
ingredients which are essential to constitute an offence
under Section 406 of the IPC are blatantly or conspicuously
missing. After minutely scrutinizing the nature of allegations
as mentioned in the FIR, this Court feels that the nature of
allegations as mentioned in the FIR impugned are not
relatable to a criminal proceeding rather it involves a
dispute of civil nature.
20) As far as the question of invocation of Section 420 of
the IPC is concerned, at first it would require to examine the
elements which are essential to constitute an offence under
Section 420 of the IPC. For ready reference Section 420 of
the IPC is reproduced as under: –
Section 420 IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery
of property.
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security,
or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable
of being converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
21) It is manifesting from the plain reading of Section 420
of the IPC that it deals with the act of cheating and
dishonestly inducing the person so deceived to deliver any(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (8 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the
whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is
signed or sealed and capable of being converted into a
valuable security.
A plain reading of the provision is also reflecting that
cheating is an essential element of the charge under Section
420 of the IPC. So, it would require to examine the
definition of cheating.
22) Section 415 of the IPC defines Cheating. For ready
reference Section 415 of the IPC is reproduced as under: –
Section 415 IPC: Cheating
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that any person shall
retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do
or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or
omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to
“cheat”.
Explanation.
A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the
meaning of this section.
23) In the case of, Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs.
State of Uttaranchal, reported in AIR 2008 SC 251,
Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that to establish the
offence under Section 420, there should be some essentials
which should be at place.
For Section 420 IPC which states cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property to be put in motion, the
essentials of the offence have to be met and the essentials
of “cheating” as mentioned in Section 415 of the IPC also
comes into play as from then and there only Section 420 of
the IPC comes out, so here are the essential ingredients of
Section 415 and they are as follows-
I. To deceive a person by misleading representation or by
making any false representation also includes dishonest
concealment or by any other act or by the way of omission
of an act,
II. Dishonestly and fraudulently inducing any person and
giving him either and or options relating to either deliver
the property or else consent to the retention thereof by any
person or with the intention of inducing that person to
deceive or to omit something he would have not done if not
deceived by the other person,
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (9 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]
III. This kind of act of omission and act of deceiving is
likely to cause the harm and damage to the body, mind and
also property of that person.
There are two categories which are mentioned in this
Section, firstly an inducement to deliver the property to any
person fraudulently or dishonestly and secondly, the acts
done or omitted by a person deceived would not have done
if not deceived by the other person. The basic difference
between these two is about intention. In the first category
we see that it is fraudulent and dishonest and in the second
category we see it is intentional but need not be fraudulent
and dishonest. For cheating it would be must to show that
there has been a fraudulent and dishonest intention.
24) In the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar
& Anr., reported in 2010 AIR SCW 405, Hon’ble the
Supreme Court had stated about the essential ingredients to
constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC and for
that purpose, cheating is the main ingredient but not the
only one so as to constitute the same offence. Beside
presence of cheating as defined under Section 415 these
further things should be followed
IV. There should be dishonest inducement of a person who is
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or
V. Make, alter or destroy the whole or part of any valuable
security and also includes anything sealed and signed and
also capable of being converted into a valuable security.
25) In the case of Alpic Finance Ltd. vs. P Sadasivan
and Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 1226, Hon’ble the
Supreme Court observed that to deceive someone is to
basically induce someone to actually believe about a thing
which on the prima facie will look true but when looked
properly it actually is false and the one who is deceiving
also knows that the thing is false and it should also be with
a dishonest and fraudulent intention while committing the
offence.
26) In the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai and Ors. vs. The
State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in (2022) 7
SCC 124, Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed in detail
every essential ingredient of Section 406 and Section 420 of
the IPC read with Section 405 and Section 415 of the IPC.
27) A guilty intention or “mens rea” is the essential
ingredient of the offence of cheating. In Hari Prasad
Chamaria vs. Bishun Kumar Surekha & Ors., as
reported in AIR 1974 SC 30, it was held that unless the
complainant shows the dishonest or fraudulent intention at
the time complainant parted with money, it would not
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (10 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]
amount to the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the
IPC and will only be a breach of contract.
28) In Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, reported in
AIR 2003 SC 2545, it has been observed that for
establishing the offence of cheating, it is required to show
that that there was fraudulent or dishonest intention of the
accused at the time of making the promise or entering into
the transaction or making any representation.
29) In the case of Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and
Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., reported in (2009) 7
SCC 712, it is propounded that from the bare perusal of the
provision it is evident that the ingredients and elements of
any fraudulent or wrongful or dishonest intention should
exists from the very inception of the contract.
30) In the case of A.M. Mohan vs. The State
represented by SHO and Ors., reported in Criminal
Appeal No. 1716 of 2024, Decided On: 20.03.2024,
Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that to attract the
provision of Section 420 of the IPC, the FIR must show the
ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC. Specifically, it should
demonstrate that a person has deceived someone,
fraudulently or dishonestly induced that person to deliver
property to any person, and that there was a dishonest
intention at the time of making the inducement. The
dishonest inducement is sine qua non to attract the
provisions of Section 415 and Section 420 of the IPC. If the
essentials are lacking in the FIR, then continuation of the
criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
In the present matter also the essentials of Section 415 and
420 of the IPC are missing and it cannot be said that there
was cheating on the part of the petitioner in the present
case.
31) In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs.
Akhil Sharda and Ors., reported in [2022] 6 SCR 772,
Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that after considering
all the facts and circumstances of the case it does not fall
under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC as the essential
ingredients of the offences mentioned in the FIR are missing
and same are the facts of the present case.
32) In the case of Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd.
and Ors., reported in (2005) 10 SCC 228, Hon’ble the
Supreme Court observed that the substance of the
complaint is to be seen and mere use of the expression
“cheating” in the complaint is of no consequence except the
words like “deceive” and “cheat” are in the complaint filed
before the Magistrate and “cheating” in the complaint filed
before the police.
33) At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that one of the
essential ingredient of cheating as mentioned in Section 415
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (11 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]
of the IPC explains it very clearly that the existence of
dishonest and fraudulent intention should be from the initial
promise or it should be present from the beginning of the
transaction.
34) A perusal of both the provisions revealing that Section
420 of the IPC is a graver form of cheating which includes
inducement to the victim for the purpose of delivery of the
property.
35) As far as the question of invocation of Section 120-B of
the IPC is concerned, at first it would require to examine the
elements which are essential to constitute an offence under
Section 120-B of the IPC. For ready reference Section 120-B
of the IPC is reproduced as under: –
Section 120B– Punishment of criminal conspiracy
i. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards,
shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for
the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the
same manner if he had abetted such offence.
ii. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than
a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as
aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine
or with both.
It is necessary to define Criminal Conspiracy, so, the
essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy can be
examined.
Section 120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.– When two
or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,i. an illegal act, or
ii. an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an
offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act
besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such
agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the
ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that
object.
36) It is evident from the above definition that to constitute
criminal conspiracy, there needs to be an agreement to
commit an offence and that need to be proved through
direct or indirect circumstantial evidence.
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (12 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]
37) In the decision of State of Kerela v. P. Sugathan and
Anr. reported in AIR 2000 SC 3323, Hon’ble the Supreme
Court noted that an agreement forms the core of the
offence of conspiracy, and it must surface in evidence
through some physical manifestation.
38) In the case of G Sagar Suri and Ors. v. State of U.P.
and Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 754, Hon’ble the
Supreme Court recognised that jurisdiction under Section
482 of the CrPC has to be exercised with a great care if the
matter is essentially of civil nature has been given a cloak of
criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of
other remedies available in law. Jurisdiction under this
Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
39) In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 , Hon’ble
the Court recognized that while exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the CrPC, High Court has to be
considerate and cautious. This power should be used only to
bar the abuse of the process and to secure the ends of
justice. It has to look upon the case and if the ingredients of
criminal offence are missing and dispute is simply related to
a civil matter, then criminal proceeding should be quashed
by the High Court just to prevent the abuse of the process
of the law and of the Court as well.
40) In the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. The State of
Karnataka and Ors., reported in AIR 2021 SC 5298,
Hon’ble the Supreme Court has propounded that there has
been an attempt to stretch the counters of a civil dispute
and thereby essentially impart a criminal color to it. It has
also been laid down that there were many instances where
a criminal color has been given to a civil dispute just to take
the advantage of relatively quick relief. This exercise is
nothing but an abuse of process of law which must be
discouraged in its entirety.
41) In the case of Randheer Singh v. The State of U.P.
and Ors., reported in (2021) 14 SCC 626, Hon’ble the
Supreme Court has again cited Paramjeet Batra (supra) to
quash the criminal proceedings and mentioned that High
Court should not hesitate in quashing the criminal
proceedings if the dispute is of civil nature and has been
given color of criminal offence.
42) In the case of Kapil Agarwal and Ors. v. Sanjay
Sharma and Ors., reported in AIR 2021 SC 1241,
Hon’ble the Supreme Court discussed about how disputes of
civil nature given criminal color are used as a weapon to
harass the opposite party and the same can be quashed in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or
in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (13 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]
43) In the case of Naresh Kumar & Ors. v. The State of
Karnataka, reported in Criminal Appeal No. 1510 of
2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1570 of 2021)
Decided On: 12.03.2024, Hon’ble the Supreme Court
again recognised that the High Court should not hesitate to
quash the criminal proceedings which are essentially of civil
nature to prevent the abuse of process of the Court.
44) Essentially the present matter between the parties is
simply of civil nature and has been given a criminal colour
to it and would not attract the criminal offence in any case
as there was no criminal breach of trust and cheating
involved, it can be ascertained that the FIR does not satisfy
or fulfil the ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust
or criminal conspiracy.”
6. In the factual report dated 04.01.2024 regarding FIR No.
80/2014, it was found that there was an oral agreement between
the applicant and the alleged non-applicants. According to the
agreement, after the applicant supplied raw material to the non-
applicants, they were to manufacture ceramic tiles from that raw
material, sell them in the market, and deposit the proceeds into
the applicant’s account. However, the alleged non-applicants failed
to do so. They neither returned the payment for the China Clay
nor returned the goods. The raw material was used with the
cooperation and consent of the alleged non-applicants. Since the
material was not returned and the issue pertained to the violation
of an oral agreement between the parties involving a financial
transaction and recovery of the outstanding amount for the
supplied China Clay, the matter was found to be of a civil nature.
It was further observed that the applicant had deliberately
fabricated allegations in the FIR and got the case registered with
the intent to pressurize the alleged accused. Consequently, in the
Final Report, the matter was found to be of civil nature.
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16554] (14 of 14) [CRLMP-3172/2014]
7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR
mentioned above, and all further proceedings undertaken in
pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside. The SHO
concerned is directed to prepare a closure report and submit the
same in the Court concerned within a period of 60 days after
receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The complainant would be at liberty to take appropriate
action for the civil wrongs allegedly committed by the accused by
approaching the appropriate forum.
9. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
34-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:01:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)