Allahabad High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 March, 2020
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12758 of 2006 Applicant :-Kuldeep Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. None appeared on behalf of Respondent-2 though the case is called in revise. Hence, I proceed to decide the matter after hearing learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. Applicant have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 28.01.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate Second, Court No. 15, Saharanpur in Case No. 284 of 2005, under Sections 406, 420 IPC.
3. It is contended that even if the allegations made in complaint are taken to be true on the face of it, it cannot be said that offence under Sections 406, 420 IPC are made out, hence entire proceedings are patently illegal and gross abuse of process of law.
4. I have gone through the complaint filed as Annexure-2 to application and contents whereof read as under:
^^1- ;g fd ifjoknh ,d csjkstxkj O;fDr gS rFkk mlds ifjokj esa NksVs&NksVs cPps gSa vkSj ifjoknh ds ikl viuh thfodk dk dksbZ lk/ku ugha Fkk ifjoknh us Lo jkstxkj ds fy;s viuh xqtj clj djus ds fy;s iz/kkuea=h jkstxkj ;kstuk ds vUrxZr iatkc us'kuy cSad eYghiqj ls _.k fy;k vkSj ifjoknh us ;g dk;Z vius gh fuokl Lfkku ij djus dk fopkj cuk;k FkkA bl dk;Z ds fy, ifjoknh dks ,d gkbZM~ksfyd e'khu dh vko';drk Fkh ifjoknh us lgkjuiqj esa e'khu ds lEcU/k esa ekywekr dh rks ifjoknh ds ,d ifjfpr us crk;k fd bl rjg dh e'khus foi{kh ua0 1 ds ;gkWa miyC/k gSaA ftudk feL=h ,oa ,tsUV foi{kh ua0 2 lgkjuiqj esa jgrk gsA 2- ;g fd ifjoknh us foi{kh ua0 2 ls lEidZ fd;k rks foi{kh u0 2 us ifjoknh dks e'khu ds ckjs esa foLrkj ls crk;k rFkk dgk fd eSa vkids lkFk ptwWaxk vki e'khu dks ns[k ys rFkk e'khu dh xkjuVh o okj.Vh ds ckjs esa ekywekr djsa foi{kh ua0 2 ifjoknh dks foi{kh ua0 1 ds dk;kZy; ij ys x;kA ifjoknh us v?kZ Lopkfyr ofVZdy ,e0ch0ekMy gkbZM~ksfyd vksijsfVax 125 xzke {kerk okyh e'khu ds ckjs esa ekywekr fd;k rks foi{kh ua0 1 us ifjoknh dks e'khu dh dher djhc 55 gtkj :i;s rFkk lSyVSDl vyx ls nsus ds ckjs esa crk;kA ifjoknh us iatkc us'kuy cSad eYghiqj ls _.k fy;k fkk ftlds lEcU/k esa dksVs'ku dh vko';drk FkhA cSad esa dksVs'ku izLrqr djuh FkhA ifjoknh us foi{kh ls dksVs'ku ds ckjs esa ckr dh rks foi{kh us ifjoknh dks dksVs'ku fnukad 19-3-2001 dks 60500@& :i;s ¼lkB gtkj ikap lkS :i;s½ dh nh ifjoknh us dksVs'ku izkIr djus ds ckn dksVs'ku dks iatkc us'kuy cSad eYghiqj esa nkf[ky fd;k tgkWa ij ifjoknh dks ,d cSad M~kQ~V tkjh gqvk tks ifjoknh us foi{kh ua0 1 dks fn;kA ftlds lEcU/k esa foi{kh ua0 1 us ,d fcy la[;k 4103 eq0 60500@& :i;s tkjh fd;kA ifjoknh dks foi{kh ua0 1 us iz'uxr e'khu ns nhA ifjoknh us foi{kh ua0 1 dks 55000@& :i;s cSad M~kQ~V ds ek/; ls rFkk 5500@& :i;s dk udn Hkqxrku fd;kA 4- ;g fd foi{kh ua0 1 us ifjoknh dks crk;k fd iz'uxr e'khu dh nks lky dh xkjUVh gSA rFkk e'khu dh fQFVax dk dk;Z foi{kh ua0 2 ds }kjk tks lgkjuiqj {ks= esa csph ;h gS fd;k tk;sxkA vkSj dksb Hkh rduhdh o xSj rduhdh izfdz;k ,oa dk;Zokgh iz'uxr e'khu esa gksxh rks mldh ftEesnkjh gekjh gksxhA vkSj mu lHkh dk nkf;Ro gekjk gksxk foi{kh ua0 1 us ifjoknh ls ;g Hkh crk;k Fkk fd foi{kh ua0 2 e'khu dks pkyw djds nsxk ifjoknh foi{khx.k dh ckrksa esa vk x;k rFkk ifjoknh foi{khx.k dh ckrksa ij ;dhu djrs gq, iz'uxr e'khu dks foi{kh ua0 1 dh nqdku ls ys vk;k fQj ifjoknh foi{khx.k ds ikl dbZ ckj x;k rc foi{kh ua0 1 us ,d i= foi{kh ua0 2 ds ikl fnukad 16-4-2001 bZ0 dks fn;kA rc dgha tkdj ifjoknh dh e'khu dh fQfVax gks ik;hAA 5- ;g fd ifjoknh us e'khu ds }kjk dk;Z izkjEHk fd;k vkSj [knh xzkeks|ksx laLfkku ls IykfLVd dk nkuk [kjhnk ijUrq iz'uxr e'khu us dk;Z lqpk: :i ls ugha fd;k blds ckn fQj ifjoknh us iz;kl fd;k ijUrq iz'uxr e'khu dh [kjkch ds dkj.k dksbZ dk;Z ugha gqvk vkSj ifjoknh us foi{khx.k ls O;fDrxr ,oa VsyhQksu ds ek/;eksa ls lEidZ fd;k ijUrq foIk{khx.k us dksbZ larks"Zktud ckr ifjoknh ls ugha dh ifjoknh us ,d i= fnukad 7-5-2001 dks foi{kh ua0 1 ds ikl Hkstk ijUrq mldk dksbZ tckc ugha feyk ifjoknh ds fdlh i= dk mRrj ugha fn;k vkSj u gh ifjoknh dh e'khu dks Bhd fd;k ifjoknh foi{kh ua0 1 ls O;fDrxr ls mlds dk;kZy; ij vius ,d lkFkh eukst xqIrk ds lkfk tkdj fnYyh feyk foi{kh ua0 1 dks crk;k fd vkids {kjk nh xbZ e'khu fcYdqy [kjkc gSA vkSj ifjoknh us foi{kh ua0 1 dks ;g Hkh crk;k fd iz'uxr e'khu dks ysrs le; tks lkeku vkius ckn esa nsus dk ok;nk fd;k Fkk vc rd og Hkh ugha feyk ftlesa ,d ghVj] lsUVj IysV rFkk dqN cksYV jg x;s FksA vkSj ifjoknh us foi{kh ua0 1 ls ;g Hkh crk;k fd iz'uxr e'khu esa foi{kh ua0 2 us dqN ;U= bl rjg ls yxk fn;s ftlls e'khu Bhd izdkj ls dk;Z ugha dj jgh gS vkSj e'khu fcYdqy cUn iM+h gqbZ gSA foi{kh ua0 1 us ifjoknh dh ;g ckr lqudj ifjoknh ls dgk fd vki yksx lgkjuiqj igqWpksa eSa nwljk feL=h e'khu Bhd djus ds fy, Hkst nwWaxk ifjoknh foi{kh ua0 1 ds }kjk vk'oklu fn;s tkus ij okil vk x;s ijUrq foi{kh ua0 1 ifjoknh dks fgys cgkus cukdj Vkyrk jgk vkSj ifjoknh dh e'khu dks Bhd djus ds fy, foi{kh ua0 1 us dksbZ feL=h ugha Hkstk rFkk foi{kh ua0 2 us ifjoknh ls ;g dg fn;k fd tc rd eq>s foi{kh ua0 1 fy[kdj vkidh e'khu ds ckjs esa ugha nsxk eSa iz'uxr e'khu ds ikl Hkh ugha tkÅaxkA 6- ;g fd dkQh bUrtkj ds ckn ifjoknh us etcwjh o'k fQj ,d i= fnukad 24-5-2001 dks foi{kh ua0 1 ij izsf"kr fd;k ijUrq mldk Hkh dksbZ tckc ifjoknh dks foi{kh ua0 1 us ugha fn;k vkSj u gh foi{Kh ua0 1 us ifjoknh dk dksbZ cdk;k lkeku fn;kA 7- ;g fd foi{khx.k ds bl d`R; ls ifjoknh dks dkQh uqdlku gks jgk gSA ifjoknh ds lkeus fcydqy Hkw[kksa ejus dh fLFkfr mRiUu gks x;h gS D;ksafd ifjoknh dk dksbZ thfodk dk lk/ku ugha gS ifjoknh us cSad ds _.k fy;k Fkk vkSj ifjoknh dh e'khu ,d o"kZ ls cUn iM+h gqbZ gS foi{khx.k }kjk nh xbZ [kjkc e'khu ds dkj.k ls ifjoknh ds ifjokj ds lkeus jksVh jksth dk iz'uxr iSnk gks x;k gSA vksj ifjoknh ds lkeus Hkw[ks ejus dh fLFkfr vk x;h gS ifjoknh us e'khu dks viuh thfodk ,oa Lo jkstxkj ds fy;s [kjhnk Fkk blhfy;s ifjoknh miHkksDrk dh ifjf/k esa vkrk gSA 8- ;g fd ifjoknh dks ekufld ,oa vkfFkZd gkfu mBkuh iM+ jgh gS vkSj ifjoknh dks foi{khx.k Vkyrs pys vk jgs gSaA ekufld ,oa vkfFkZd gkfu dk ewY;kadu /ku ds :i esa ugha fd;k tk ldrk ijUrq fQj hkh ifjoknh ekufld ,oa vkfFkZd gkfu ds :i esa foi{khx.k ls rgu yk[k :i;s rFkk ifjoknh }kjk ckj&ckj fnYyh tkus i= Mkyus VsyhQksu ds ek/;e ls lEidZ djus esa djhc 5000@& :i;s O;; gq;sA ifjoknh dks djhc 50000@& :i;s e'khu ds cUn jgus ls gqvk gS ;kfu dqy rhu yk[k ipiu gtkj :i;s foi{khx.k ifjoknh dks nsus dk mRrjnk;h gSA 9- ;g fd ;g d`R; foi{khx.k dh ykijokgh dk urhtk gS tks Mh0ih0lh;lh vkQ lfoZl dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA ifjoknh us iz'uxr e'khu dks :i;s nsdj [kjhnk gS blhfy;s ifjoknh miHkksDrk dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gS vkSj ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks okn ds Jo.k djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr gSA 10- ;g fd fcuk;s eq[kkler izkFkZuk i= vOoyu ifjoknh ds }kjk iz'uxr e'khu [kjhnus vkSj dk;Z lqpk: :i ls u djus ifjoknh dks gkfu igqWapkus vkSj ifjoknh dh dksbZ lquok;h u djus rFkk cdk;k lkeku u nsus o budkj vkf[kj dy gnwn bykdk vnkyr gktk iSnk gqbZA 11- ;g fd ifjoknh us foi{khx.k ls dgk rFkk dgyok;k fd e'khu dks Bhd dj ns ;k [kjkc e'khu dks fnr dj nwljh e'khu ns nsA ijUrq foi{khx.k U;k;ky; ds ckgj f[kykQ dkuwu dksbZ lquokbZ ugha dj jgk gS fygktk ukfy'k gSA 12- ;g fd ifjoknh 'kgj lgkjuiqj ds xkao eksgEeniqj cgyksy dk LFkk;h fuoklh gS rFkk foi{khx.k ua0 2 lgkjuiqj esa jgdj foi{kh ua0 1 dh e'khuksa dh ns[kHkky ,oa ,tsUV dk dk;Z djrk gS blfy;s ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks okn gktk dh lquok;h dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr gSA**
5. Ex facie, I find it difficult to hold that aforesaid allegations satisfy ingredients of Section 405 IPC so as to justify summoning of applicant under Section 406 and 420 IPC.
6. Section 406 IPC provides punishment for "criminal breach of trust" which may be imprisonment for a term upto three years with fine or with both. The term "criminal breach of trust" is defined in Section 405 IPC, which reads as under:
"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.
Explanation 1.--A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not, who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.
Explanation 2.--A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees' contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid."
7. The necessary ingredients to attract offence of "criminal breach of trust", are:
(A) entrustment to any person with property or with any dominion over property;
(B) the person entrusted:
(i) dishonestly misappropriated or converts to his own use of that property;
(ii) dishonestly used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffers any person so to do in violation--
(a) of any direction of law prescribing the mode to which such trust is to be discharged;
(b) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.
8. In Bhikari Charan Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa, 1982 Cr.L.J. NOC 174 a Sarpanch had applied to Block Development Officer for supply of seeds on credit by specifically stating in application that supply would not benefit him alone but other persons in locality. The direction had been given to pay back amount within a week on supply of seeds but he failed to pay amount within stipulated time. Orissa High Court held that it amounts to breach of trust and not criminal breach of trust.
9. Criminal breach of trust, therefore, would require complainant to show, (a) that accused was entrusted with property or with dominion over it; and, (b) that he misappropriated it or converted it to his own use or used it or disposed it. Mens rea is an essential element.
10. In R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta and others, 2009(1) SCC 516, Court has explained, when it would be justified for High Court to interfere in criminal proceedings and Court has said:
"Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are:
(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue."
11. This decision has been followed in Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2015(6) SCALE 77. This has also been followed recently by a Division Bench of this Court, (in which I was a member) in Sh. Suneel Galgotia and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016(92) ACC 40.
12. Following above authorities and exposition of law, and discussion as also after examination of complaint, I have no manner of doubt that complaint in question does not satisfy ingredients of Section 405 IPC, hence no offence punishable under Section 406 IPC can be said to have been committed.
13. Now comes Section 420 IPC. A bare perusal of aforesaid complaint clearly shows that ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not at all satisfied. Section 420 is "cheating" which is defined in Section 415 and both these provisions read 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".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
"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 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."
14. In order to attract allegations of "cheating", following things must exist:
(i) deception of a person;
(ii) (A) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person,
(a) to deliver any property to any person; or,
(b) to consent that any person shall retain any property, (B) intentional inducing that person to do or omit to do any thing,
(a) which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived, and,
(b) such act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
15. Then in order to attract Section 420 I.P.C., essential ingredients are:
(i) cheating;
(ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make or destroy any valuable security or any thing which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and,
(iii) mens rea of accused at the time of making inducement and which act of omission.
16. In Mahadeo Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724 it was observed that to constitute offence of cheating, intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when inducement was offered.
17. In Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575, Court said that a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. For the offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that person, must be established.
18. In G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad and others, 2000(3) SCC 693, Court said that Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any property and in the second part the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. In other words in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent while in the second part, inducement should be intentional.
19. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2000(4) SCC 168 Court said that in the definition of 'cheating', 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, inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest. It was pointed out that there is a fine distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating. It depends upon the intention of accused at the time to 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. In order to hold a person guilty of cheating it would be obligatory to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. Mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, i.e, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.
20. In S.W. Palanitkar and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2002(1) SCC 241, while examining the ingredients of Section 415 IPC, the aforesaid authorities were followed.
21. In Hira Lal Hari lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI, New Delhi, 2003(5) SCC 257, Court said that to hold a person guilty of cheating under Section 415 IPC it is necessary to show that he has fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise with an intention to retain property. The Court further said:
"Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which defines cheating, requires deception of any person (a) inducing that person to: (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 not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person, anybody's mind, reputation or property. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the appellants state that person 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, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest."
(Emphasis added)
22. In Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishan Singh 2004 (2) JT 539 (SC), it was held that making of a false representation is one of the ingredients of offence of cheating.
23. In Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd., 2006(6) SCC 736 in similar circumstances of advancement of loan against hypothecation, the complainant relied on Illustrations (f) and (g) to Section 415, which read as under:
"(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats."
"(g). A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contact and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract." (emphasis added)
24. Court said that crux of the postulate is intention of the person who induces 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. Court also referred to its earlier decisions in Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi, 1999(3) SCC 259 and held that 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.
25. In Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and another, 2007(7) SCC 373 it was held that if no act of inducement on the part of accused is alleged and no allegation is made in the complaint that there was any intention to cheat from the very inception, the requirement of Section 415 read with Section 420 IPC would not be satisfied. The Court relied on the earlier decisions in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma (supra) and Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd.(supra).
26. The aforesaid authorities have been referred to and relied on in reference to offence under Section 420 I.P.C. by a Division Bench of this Court in Sh. Suneel Galgotia (supra).
27. In view of discussions made hereinabove and considering the allegations contained in the complaint in the case in hand in the light of above authorities, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
28. The application is allowed. Impugned summoning order dated 28.01.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate Second, Court No. 15, Saharanpur in Case No. 284 of 2005, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, is hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 06.03.2020 AK