The Supreme Court of India in its latest judgment reaffirmed the crucial distinction between civil wrongs arising from contractual disputes and criminal offenses under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case in question, which sought the quashing of an FIR, prompted the Court to underscore the importance of not abusing the criminal justice system for oblique purposes.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Dipankar Dutta made pertinent observations, emphasizing that initiating criminal proceedings for matters that essentially pertain to breach of contract or non-payment of dues constitutes an abuse of legal process.
The bench referenced previous judgments, including "Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another" and "V.Y. Jose and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another," to emphasize that mere contractual disputes should not lead to the initiation of criminal proceedings.
The Court elucidated on the legal requirements for establishing offenses such as cheating under Section 415 of the IPC, emphasizing the necessity of fraudulent or dishonest intent at the inception of the contract. It emphasized that without clear averments establishing the essential elements of the offense, the invocation of criminal proceedings is unwarranted.
Furthermore, the Court invoked Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), highlighting its inherent power vested in the High Court to prevent the harassment of individuals through protracted criminal litigation when no genuine criminal offense is discernible. This provision serves as a safeguard against the unjustified perpetuation of criminal trials in cases where no offense is made out from the complaint.
In dissecting the specific FIR under consideration, the Court meticulously examined the allegations and found them lacking in substance to constitute criminal offenses.
Despite assertions of non-payment of dues, the Court concluded that the essential elements of offenses under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC were not met. Notably, it pointed out the absence of deception or dishonest inducement in the contractual dealings in question.
Moreover, the Court addressed the issue of simultaneous charges under different sections of the IPC, emphasizing that the same act cannot result in multiple offenses. It clarified that for charges of cheating, dishonest intent must be present at the outset of the transaction, whereas criminal breach of trust necessitates a specific relationship between the parties, which was absent in the case at hand.
In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that while the respondent may pursue civil remedies through a lawsuit, the initiation of criminal proceedings lacked merit.
The Court's decision underscores the need for a judicious application of legal principles to prevent the misuse of criminal law in contractual disputes, thereby upholding the integrity of the justice system.
Case: LALIT CHATURVEDI & OTHERS vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13485 of 2023).
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy