Bombay High Court
Abhijit Anil Chowdhary And 2 Others vs The State Of Mah., Thr. Senior Inspector ... on 29 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:1766-DB
20-APL-1030-2019.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1030 OF 2019
1. Abhijit Anil Chowdhary
Aged 52 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o 102 Kamal Kunj,
J. V .P. D Scheme,
Juhu, Mumbai 49
2. Sapna d/o Bhimsen Mehta
Aged 39 years,
Occupation: Business,
R/o., D-97, 2nd Floor, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi - 110018
3. Rajnessh Devidas Berry
Aged 45 years,
Occupation: Business,
E - 405, Vallabh Anand Apartment,
Link Road, Malad (west),
Mumbai - 400064 APPLICANTS
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Senior Inspector of Police,
Jaripatka Police Station, Nagpur
2. Vijay Parshuram Valde,
Aged about 49 years,
Occupation: Business,
R/o. Samadhan Decorations
& Caterers, 456, Bezonbagh Model
Town, Indora Nagpur, NON-APPLICANTS
Distt : Nagpur
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Masood Shareef, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for Non-applicant /State.
Mr. Yash Sawaitol h/f Shashibhushan Wahane, Advocate for Non-
applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-APL-1030-2019.odt
2
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 29.01.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Admit.
2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties.
3. By this application, the applicants are seeking quashing of the first information report in connection with Crime No. 1004 of 2019 registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The applicants are made an accused on the basis of a report lodged by one Vijay Parshuram Valde on an allegation that he is dealing with the business of decoration and caterers. He is acquainted with Sumit Tidke and Amit Tidke, who used to organize events of various celebrities. It is further alleged that on 21.12.2013, they approached to him and informed him that they can organize event of singer Mika Singh at Nagpur and amount of Rs.35,00,000/- required to be paid for the said event and induced the complainant to invest the amount on the pretext that, if he organizes the said event, he would earn a huge amount. They further arranged a meeting between Abhijit Chaudhary- applicant No.1, who communicated to the complainant that he used to organize the event of Mika Singh abroad to his company 'AIM Events' and further asked the complainant to deposit the amount of 20-APL-1030-2019.odt 3 Rs.35,00,000/- to his company, if he wants to organize the event. By trusting the words of the applicant No.1 and the other co-accused, the complainant disclosed to his friend Akash Gupta that he also shown his willingness to participate and organize the said event. In the first week of January 2014, the other co-accused disclosed to the complainant that he has to make a part payment towards the advance amount for the said event and fixed a date of event. Accordingly, the complainant and his friend Akash Gupta have deposited amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and handed over it to the other co-accused at Nagpur and on his instructions again deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 16.01.2014 in the account of the accused No.3 and on 17.01.2014, the friend of the complainant Akash Gupta and his son transferred the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in the account of applicant No.3-Rajnessh Devidas Berry. After the payment of total amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, event was fixed on 03.05.2014, but the applicants fraudulently asked the complainant to change the date of event and subsequently they cancelled the said event and thereby they cheated the complainant. On the basis of the said report, the police have registered the crime against the present applicants.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants who submitted that even accepting the allegation as it is at its face value itself, not attracting any offence as the ingredients of the offence of 20-APL-1030-2019.odt 4 cheating as well as the ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust is absent. He submitted that to hold a person guilty of cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise with an intention to retain the property. As far as the Section 406 is concerned, he submitted that every breach of contract cannot be termed as criminal breach of trust and therefore, no offence is made out against the present applicants. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposes the same and submitted that considering the manner in which the applicants came into contact with the complainant and by inducing him, obtained money from him and thereafter, cancelled the event is sufficient to show their fraudulent intention and their involvement in the alleged offence. In view of that, prima facie, a case is made out; hence, the application deserves to be rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has also endorsed the same contentions.
8. On perusal of the entire investigation papers as well as the FIR, it reveals that there was agreement between the present applicants and the complainant as to the organizing one event. As 20-APL-1030-2019.odt 5 the complainant has shown his interest to organize the event of Mika Singh, some amount is invested by him and as per his allegation, the said amount was neither repaid back to him nor any event was arranged as agreed by the present applicants and subsequently, that payment was cancelled and thereby they have cheated him and committed the offence punishable under Section 420, 12-B, 506, 406 of IPC. On perusal of the entire investigation papers, it reveals that the allegations are of a commercial nature. The transactions between the present applicants and the non- applicant No.2 was in the nature of commercial transaction. They enter into an agreement to organize some event and in that context, the non-applicant No.2 has invested the amount.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on Sarabjit Kaur Versus State of Punjab and another reported in (2023) 5 Supreme Court Cases 360, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. After considering the facts and the circumstances on record, the pivotal question which is to be 20-APL-1030-2019.odt 6 answered is whether the offence under Sections 406 and 420 will go together and whether the ingredients of the offence of cheating are present in the said allegation. To hold a person guilty of cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise with an intention to retain the property, in other words Section 415 of IPC, which defines cheating requires deception of a person. Section 415 of IPC reads thus:
"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".
10. In light of the above definition, admittedly there is nothing on record to show that the dishonest intention of deception on the part of the present applicants since inception. Apparently the dispute between the applicants and the non-applicant No.2 appears to be of a civil nature as there was a breach of agreement as both were agreed to organize one event and to organize the 20-APL-1030-2019.odt 7 said event some amount was invested by the non-applicant No.2 and subsequently, the said event was cancelled. Thus, as far as the intention since inception is concerned, which is absent in the present case. Moreover, it is well settled law that the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot exist together. There is difference between simple breach of trust and offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating as contemplated under the Indian Penal Code as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments that when there is investment of property and the same be dishonestly misappropriated, offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code goes out of picture. Thus, for cheating criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a first representation that exist since inception. While in criminal breach of trust, the proof of investment is sufficient. In other words, in case of criminal breach of trust the offender i.e., the accused is lawfully entrusted with the property and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. While in cheating the offender fraudulently induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property, thus in such a situation, the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.
20-APL-1030-2019.odt 8
11. In the case of Rikhab Birani & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8592 of 2024, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court by relying upon its earlier judgment in Sharif Ahmad & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 72 held that an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code require entrustment, which carries the indication that a person handing over any property continues to be the owner of the said property. Such person, who hands over a property must have confidence in the person thereby creating a fiduciary relationship between them. A normal transaction of sale or exchange of money/consideration does not amount to entrustment.
12. In the case of A. M. Mohan v. State represented by SHO and Another reported in (2024) 12 SCC 181, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown 20-APL-1030-2019.odt 9 of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. 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. The issue in the present matter is regarding alleged non-organization of the event which agreed to organize and therefore, the offence or the nature of the allegations would be civil in nature and no criminal offence is made out against the present applicants.
13. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, a present case would squarely fall within parameters (a), (c), (e) and therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgment is reproduced as under:-
" (a) 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;
(c) 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;
20-APL-1030-2019.odt 10
(e) 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."
14. I therefore quash and set aside the first information report in connection with the Crime No. 1004 of 2019 registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code to the extent of the applicants.
15. The Application is disposed of.
16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.) MJ Jadhav