Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction v. SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD & Anr.

Judgment

1. The present revisional application has been preferred against an order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta in complaint case no. C/S- 95394/2021 taking cognizance against the petitioners/accused persons under Sections 406/420/506 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with a prayer for quashing of the entire proceeding in respect of the petitioners herein.

2. Vide the order under revision the learned Magistrate examined the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issued Process against the accused persons.

3. The case of the petitioners is as follows:- “i. The opposite party no.1 carries on business of finance. ii. There was an agreement between the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.1 dated 17.10.2016 in the form of a letter dated 17.10.2016 mentioning the details of amounts agreed to be lent by the opposite party no.1 to the petitioner no.1 with the details of the assets of the petitioner, interest rate and number of installments for a sum of Rs.1,14,00,000/-. iii. Under the said agreement the petitioners agreed to repay the said loan by way of monthly installments as agreed between the parties as mentioned in the Schedule thereto. iv. The petitioner no.1 has paid installments from time to time to the opposite party no.1 against the said loan which was accepted by the opposite party no.1 without any demur or reservation. v. By the letter dated 5th July, 2017, the opposite party no.1 restructured the loan amount and the rate of interest tune of Rs.1,25,53,000/- and forwarded a revised Schedule of installments to the petitioner no.1 for payment. vi. No amount was paid or lent or advanced by the opposite party to the petitioner in the month of June, 2017 as the same was merely a reschedulement of the existing loan transaction. vii. The opposite party no.1 once again by its letter dated 30th March, 2019 revised the repayment Schedule.

viii. A plain reading of the agreement between the parties read with the revised Schedules makes it apparent that the transaction between the parties is a commercial transaction and the same is a concluded contract between the parties.”

4. The complainant’s case in the petition of complaint is that on the basis of an agreement the complainant-company provided financial assistance to the accused persons but installments were not diligently repaid and hence the present case.

5. A copy of the agreement filed shows that the agreement runs into more than 58 pages and Clause 9.11 reads as follows:- “9.11 Dispute Resolution Arbitration Any disputes and/or differences arising out of or in connection with the Agreement during subsistence or thereafter between the parties including any disputes and differences relating to the interpretation of the agreement or any clause thereof shall be adjudicated by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and rules framed there under and any amendment, modification, statutory enactment thereto from time to time and shall be referred to the Arbitration of a sole Arbitrator appointed by the Company upon intimation to all parties to this Agreement. The proceedings shall be held at Kolkata. The cost of the proceedings shall be borne by the parties to this Agreement. The award of the arbitrator shall be final, conclusive and binding on all the parties.”

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Debapratim Neogie vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 3158, where in the court held:- “22. In the present case:— a) The company has not been made an accused, though the agreement has been admittedly executed between the two companies. b) The petitioner has been made the sole accused as a director of the company who was in-charge of its affairs.

23. The Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal nos. 1263, 1264 and 1265-1267 of 2019, held:— considering “27. The liability of the Directors/the controlling authorities of company, in a corporate criminal liability is elaborately considered by this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal. In the aforesaid case, circumstances when Director/person in charge of the affairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when the company is an accused person, this Court has held, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. At the same time it is observed that it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the Statute specifically provides for. It is further held by this Court, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of the company can be made an accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent. Further it is also held that an individual can be implicated in those cases where statutory regime itself attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically incorporating such a provision.

29. By applying the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal it is clear that an individual either as a Director or a Managing Director or Chairman of the company can be made an accused, along with the company, only if there is sufficient material to prove his active role coupled with the criminal intent. Further the criminal intent alleged must have direct nexus with the accused. Further in the case of Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat this Court has examined the vicarious liability of Directors for the charges levelled against the Company. In the aforesaid judgment this Court has held that, the Penal Code, 1860 does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company, when the accused is a Company. It is held that vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the Statute. It is further held that Statutes indisputably must provide fixing such vicarious liability. It is also held that, even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability. for quashing the allegations made against

30. In the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane while examining Managing Director of a Company, in which, company was not made a party, this Court has held that when the allegations made against the Managing Director are vague in nature, same can be the the proceedings under ground case on hand Section 482 of Cr. P.C. In principally the allegations are made against the first accused-company which runs Hotel Hyatt Regency. At the same time, the Managing Director of such company who is accused no. 2 is a party by making vague allegations that he was attending all the meetings of the company and various decisions were being taken under his signatures. Applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, it is clear that principally the allegations are made only against the company and other staff members who are in charge of day to day affairs of the company. In absence of specific allegations against the Managing Director of the company and having regard to nature of allegations made which are vague in nature, we are of the view that it is a fit case for quashing the proceedings, so far as the Managing Director is concerned.”

24. In Dayle De‟ Souza v. Government of India Through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), in Criminal Appeal No. …. of 2021 (arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 3913 of 2020), decided on October 29, 2021, the Supreme Court held:— “24. In Sharad Sanghi v. Sangita Rane, (2015) 12 SCC 781 this Court observed that:— Kumar “11. In the case at hand as the complainant's initial statement would reflect, the allegations are against the Company, the Company has not been made a party and, therefore, the allegations are restricted to the Managing Director. As we have noted earlier, allegations are vague and in fact, principally the allegations are against the Company. There is no specific allegation against the Managing Director. When a company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened under certain statutes. It has been so held by a three-Judge Bench in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours (P) Ltd. in the context of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. xx xx xx

13. When the company has not been arraigned as an accused, such an order could not have been passed. We have said so the sake of completeness. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should have been well advised to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and that having not been done, the order is sensitively vulnerable and accordingly we set aside the same and quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against the appellant.”

25. This position was again clarified and reiterated by this Court in Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy, (2019) 3 SCC 797. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus: “6. The judgment of the High Court has been questioned on two grounds. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that firstly, the appellant could not be prosecuted without the company being named as an accused. The cheque was issued by the company and was signed by the appellant as its Director. Secondly, it was urged that the observation of the High Court that the company can now be proceeded against in the complaint is misconceived. The learned counsel submitted that the offence under Section 138 is complete only upon the issuance of a notice of demand and the failure of payment within the prescribed period. In absence of compliance with the requirements of Section 138, it is asserted, the direction of the High Court that the company could be impleaded/arraigned at this stage is erroneous.

7. The first submission on behalf of the appellant is no longer res integra. A decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. governs the area of dispute. The issue which fell for consideration was whether an authorised signatory of a company would be Section 138 of liable the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 without the company being arraigned as an accused. The three- Judge Bench held thus : (SCC p. 688, para 58) prosecution the words “as well as “58. Applying the doctrine of strict construction, we are of the considered opinion that commission of offence by the company is an express condition precedent to attract the vicarious liability of others. the company” Thus, appearing it absolutely the section make unmistakably clear that when the company can be prosecuted, then only the persons mentioned in the other categories could be vicariously liable for the offence subject to the averments in the petition and proof thereof. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the company is a juristic person and it has its own respectability. If a finding is recorded against it, it would create a concavity in its reputation. There can be situations when the corporate reputation is affected when a Director is indicted.” In similar terms, the Court further held : (SCC p. 688, para 59) “59. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag-net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself.” xx xx xx

12. The provisions of Section 141 postulate that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished.

13. In the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the appellant was therefore not maintainable. The appellant had signed the cheque as a Director of the company and for and on its behalf. Moreover, in the absence of a notice of demand being served on the company and without compliance with the proviso to Section 138, the High Court was in error in holding that the company could now be arraigned as an accused.” in Aneeta Hada (supra),

26. Applying the same proposition of law as laid Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 751 applying pari materia provision in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, held that: “23. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act makes the person nominated to be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business and the company shall be guilty of the offences under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, there is no material distinction between Section 141 of the NI Act and Section 17 of the Act which makes the company as well as the nominated person to be held guilty of the offences and/or liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly. Clauses (a) and (b) are not in the alternative but conjoint. Therefore, in the absence of the company, the nominated person cannot be convicted or vice versa. Since the Company was not convicted by the trial court, we find that the finding of the High Court to revisit the judgment will be unfair to the appellant-nominated person who has been facing trial for more than last 30 years. Therefore, the order of remand to the trial court to fill up the lacuna is not a fair option exercised by the High Court as the failure of the trial court to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the nominated person as unsustainable.”

27. In terms of the ratio above, a company being a juristic person cannot be imprisoned, but it can be subjected to a fine, which in itself is a punishment. Every punishment has adverse consequences, and therefore, prosecution of the company is mandatory. The exception would possibly be when the company itself has ceased to exist or cannot be prosecuted due to a statutory bar. However, such exceptions are of no relevance in the present case. Thus, the present prosecution must fail for this reason as well.”

25. Therefore, in the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a proceeding only against the petitioner as director, in-charge of the affairs of the company (Dayle De‟ Souza v. Government of India Through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), (Supra)). is not maintainable

26. Admittedly there is a sub-lease agreement dated 17.11.2014 between the companies relating to supply of electricity to the extent of 60KW to be given to the Sub-lease/opposite party/complainant. A Deed of Sub-lease was executed between the companies on 21.04.2015 to give effect to the said agreement on 09.04.2016, an Agreement executed between Neogie Auto Pvt. Ltd. and Reliance Corporate IT Park Limited, to provide additional 37KW of electricity to Reliance. Clause T of the said agreement provides for an arbitration clause. complainant/opposite

27. The party without (invoking the Arbitration Clause in the agreement dated 09.04.2016 has the Criminal Complaint. initiated

28. The following judgments have been relied upon by the petitioner:— i) In Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2023) 5 SCC 360, decided on March 1, 2023, the Supreme Court held:— is evident intention is shown right at transaction. Merely on the property dealers which was the name of “13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest beginning of allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record, Respondent 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against subsequent complaints appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which FIR was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court.” In M.N.G. Reddy v. Ramesh ii) Ranganathan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1061, decided on August 18, 2022, the Supreme Court held:— Bharateesh “13. The ingredients of the offence of cheating are spelt out in Section 415 of the IPC. Section 415 is extracted below: “415. 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.”

14. The ingredients of the offence under Section 415 emerge from a textual reading. Firstly, to constitute cheating, a person must deceive another. Secondly, by doing so the former must induce the person so deceived to (i) deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (iii) intentionally induce 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 such an act or omission must cause or be likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

15. Section 420 deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It reads as follows: “420. 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 capable of converting into a valuable shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” security,

16. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, a two-judge bench of this Court interpreted sections 415 and 420 of IPC to hold that fraudulent or dishonest intention is a precondition to constitute the offence of cheating. The relevant extract from the judgment reads thus: “14. On a reading of the section it is manifest that in the definition there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest.

15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.” (emphasis supplied)

17. In Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar Singh a two-judge bench of this Court held that a dispute arising out of a breach of contract would not amount to an offence of cheating under section 415 and 420. The relevant extract is as follows: “9. The Code are: ingredients of Section 420 of the Penal “(i) Deception of any persons; (ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or (iii) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.” intentionally

10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non- refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard Section 405 of (See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703])” its definition the Penal contained Code. (emphasis supplied)

18. Applying the above principles, the ingredients of Sections 415 and 420 are not made out in the present case. The grievance of the first respondent arises from the termination of his services at the hospital. The allegations indicate that there was an improper billing in respect of the surgical services which were rendered by the complainant at the hospital. At the most, the allegations allude to a breach of terms of the Consultancy Agreement by the Appellant, which is essentially in the nature of a civil dispute.

19. The allegations in the complaint are conspicuous by the absence of any reference to the practice of any deception or dishonest intention on behalf of the Appellant. Likewise, there is no allegation that the complainant was as a consequence induced to deliver any property or to consent that any person shall retain any property or that he was deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would have not done or omitted to do if he was not so deceived. The conspicuous aspect of the complaint which needs to be emphasized is that the ingredients of the offence of cheating are absent in the averments as they stand.

20. Section 405 of breach of trust and reads as follows: the IPC deals with criminal “405. Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.”

21. The offence of criminal breach of trust contains two ingredients : (i) entrusting any person with property, or with any dominion over property; and (ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property to the detriment of the person who entrusted it.

22. In Anwar Chand Sab Nanadikar v. State of Karnataka a two-judge bench restated the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust in the following words: to bring home “7. The basic requirement accusations under Section 405 are the requirements to prove conjointly (1) entrustment, and (2) whether the accused was actuated by the dishonest intention or not misappropriated it or converted it to his own use to the detriment of the persons who entrusted it. As the question of intention is not a matter of direct proof, certain broad tests are envisaged which would generally afford useful guidance in deciding whether in a particular case the accused had mens rea for the crime.”

23. In Vijay of West Kumar Ghai v. State Bengal two-judge bench held that entrustment of property is pivotal to constitute an offence under section 405 of the IPC. The relevant extract reads as follows: “28. “Entrustment” of property under Section 405 of the Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence under this. The words used are, “in any manner entrusted with property”. So, it extends to to clerks, entrustments of all kinds whether servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of “trust”. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code.”

24. None of the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust have been demonstrated on the allegations in the complaint as they stand. The first respondent alleges that the Appellant caused breach of trust by issuing grossly irregular bills, which adversely affected his professional fees. However, an alleged breach of the contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust without there being a clear case of entrustment. No element of entrustment has been prima facie established based on the facts and circumstances of the present matter. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are ex facie not made out on the basis of the complaint as it stands.” In Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West iii) Bengal, (2022) 7 SCC 124, decided on March 22, 2022, the Supreme Court held:— “24. This Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.

25. This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This Court [Indian Oil in Indian Oil Corpn. Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do interests further observed lenders/creditors. The Court [Indian Oil that: (Indian Oil Corpn. Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188], SCC p. 749, para 13) adequately protect “13. … Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.”

27. Section 405 IPC defines trust” which reads as under: “criminal breach of “405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.” The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are: (1) The accused must be entrusted with the property or with dominion over it, (2) The person so entrusted must use that property, or; (3) The accused must dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so in violation, (a) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or; (b) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.

28. “Entrustment” of property under Section 405 of the Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence under this. The words used are, “in any manner entrusted with property”. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of “trust”. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code.

29. The definition in the section does not restrict the property to movables or immovables alone. This Court [R.K. in R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Admn. Dalmia v. Delhi Admn., (1963) 1 SCR 253 : AIR 1962 SC 1821] held that the word “property” is used in the Code in a much wider sense than the expression “movable property”. There is no good reason to restrict the meaning of the word “property” to movable property only when it is used without any qualification in Section 405. Shantilal Mehta v. CBI

30. In Sudhir [Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 1 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 646] it was observed that the act of criminal breach of trust would, inter alia mean using or disposing of the property by a person who is entrusted with or has otherwise dominion thereover. Such an act must not only be done dishonestly but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract express or implied relating to carrying out the trust.

31. Section 415 IPC defines “cheating” which reads as under: “415. 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”.” The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are:

1. Deception of any person

2.(a) Fraudulently or dishonestly person— inducing that (i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were no 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.

32. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.

33. Section 420 IPC defines dishonestly inducing delivery of property” which reads as under: “cheating inducing “420. Cheating and dishonestly 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.”

34. Section 420 IPC is a serious form of cheating that includes inducement (to lead or move someone to happen) in terms of delivery of property as well as valuable securities. This section is also applicable to matters where the destruction of the property is caused by the way of cheating or inducement. Punishment for cheating is provided under this section which may extend to 7 years and also makes the person liable to fine.

35. To establish the offence of cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the following ingredients need to be proved: (i) The representation made by the person was false. (ii) The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false. (iii) The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made. (iv) The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed.

36. As observed and held by this Court in R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha [R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 454], the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows: Seetharam (i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and (ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to: (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC.

37. The following observation made by this Court in Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar [Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 49] with almost similar facts and circumstances may be relevant to note at this stage : (SCC pp. 338-39, paras 6-7) they receive “6. Now the question to be examined by us is as to whether on the facts disclosed in the petition of the complaint any criminal offence whatsoever is made out much less offences under Sections 420/120- BIPC. The only allegation in the complaint petition against the accused persons is that they assured that when the complainant insurance claim amounting to Rs. 4,20,000, they would pay a sum of Rs. 2,60,000 to the complainant out of that but the same has never been paid. … It was pointed out on behalf of the complainant that the accused fraudulently persuaded the complainant to agree so that the accused persons may take steps for moving the consumer forum in relation to the claim of Rs. 4,20,000. It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case, it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception that there was intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.

7. In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-BIPC and the present case is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the powers under the same by exercising Section 482 Cr. P.C. which it has erroneously refused.”

38. There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. However, as in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad held by this Court Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating, which is criminal offence, is a fine one. While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. In the case at hand, complaint filed by Respondent 2 does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention of the appellants.

39. In Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 498], this Court made the following observation : (SCC pp. 297-98, para 13) “13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case, there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In our view, the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of Court committed [Maniprasad v. State of Kerala, 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 4251] an error in refusing to exercise the High power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings.”

40. Having gone through the complaint/FIR and even the charge-sheet, it cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Sections 405 and 420, IPC, 1860. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making promise Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out. In the instant case, there is no material to indicate that the appellants had any mala fide intention against the respondent which is clearly deductible from the MoU dated 20-8-2009 arrived at between the parties.” absent, offence iv) Vivo Communication Device (P) Ltd. v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 49 (Para 11, 18, 19, 37). v) Jully Techi v. State of W.B., 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 588 (Para 5, 6, 17, 18, 22). vi) Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home, (2019) 11 SCC 706.

29. The following judgments have been relied upon by the opposite party/complainant:— i) In Soumajit Bag v. State of West Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1577, the Court came to the finding that there is prima materials on record making out a criminal offence. ii) Trisuns Agarwal, (1999) 8 SCC 686. Chemical Industry v. Rajesh “A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 - Quashing of complaint or FIR - Cheating alleged - criminal prosecution, held, cannot be thwarted civil proceedings are also merely because maintainable - Existence of an arbitration clause in the contract for supply of goods between appellant Company and another company, held, not a sufficient ground for quashing the complaint filed by the appellant against the supplier company alleging cheating by supplying inferior goods - Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 415 and 420 - Arbitration - Generally - Possibility of cannot thwart criminal proceedings - Arbitrator not competent to adjudge an offence.” iii) S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241. “E. Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 405, 406 and 420 - Prosecution under - Agreement providing for remedy of arbitration no bar - Agreement in relation to commercial transaction containing an arbitration clause - Criminal Prosecution for breach of such contract, if such breach even prima facie constituted a criminal offence, held, not barred merely because of the presence of the arbitration clause in the agreement - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss. 200, 203 and 204 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Ss. 7 and 8.” Rest of the judgment divide as to when an offence under Sections 406/420 IPC is made out. iv) Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259. long as offence has “B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 2(d) - “Complaint” - Not essential that it should verbatim contain all the ingredients of the factual offence alleged so foundation laid……………. It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at this stage. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. rare cases) (Para 9) It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed the course of commercial and also money transactions. (Para 10) The crux of the postulate is the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in discerning whether there was commission of offence or not. The complainant has stated in the body of the complaint that he was induced to believe that the respondent would honour payment on receipt of invoices, and that the complainant realised later that the intentions of the respondent were not clear. He also mentioned that the respondent after receiving the goods had sold then to others and still he did not pay the money. Such averments would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authorities. (Para 11) testing In the present case the High Court seems to have adopted a strictly hypertechnical approach and sieved the complaint through a cullendar of finest gauzes Section 415 IPC. Such an endeavour may be justified during trial, but certainly not during the stage of is too investigation. At any rate, premature a stage for the High Court to step in and stall the investigation by declaring that it is a commercial transaction simpliciter wherein no semblance of criminal offence is involved. ingredients (Para 12) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, relied on.” v) Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736. “A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S. 482 - Petition under S. 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing criminal complaint alleging commission of if, on various offences under Penal Code - Disputes arising from breach of contract - Civil remedy available and availed of - Remedy under criminal law, held not barred if the allegations disclose a criminal offence Allegations contained in the complaint, taken on their face value, facts, constituted offences under Penal Code - Maintainability of the petition under S. 482 However, current practice of misuse of criminal process to put undue pressure in civil disputes deprecated - Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 378, 403, 405, 415 and 425.” vi) State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta, (2004) 1 SCC 691 : Para - 8, 11, 13.

30. Thus with the judgments relied upon by both sides, the principle guiding such cases remains the same.

31. In the present case admittedly there were agreements between the parties (companies) since the year 2014. The present case has been initiated in 2018.

32. As such it is clear that the parties had no disputes during initial period of contract. Thus there are no materials to support the contention of the opposite party that the petitioner intention to deceive/cheat right from the inception of the agreement.

33. The case of entrustment also is absent as the transaction between the parties was only on the basis of the agreements, for letting out their premises (the petitioner company’s).