LexBINOD KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2014] 11 S.C.R. 85 BINOD KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. (Crir:ninal Appeal No. 2327 of 2014) OCTOBER 30, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Criminal proceedings u/s. 406 /PC - Quashing of - Denial by High Court - Held: Exercise of inherent powers to quash the c proceedings is called for, only where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous - The complaint in the present case does make out a case of dishonest misappropriation or cheating - Proceedings liable to be quashed. o Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In proceedings instituted on criminal complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint E does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. The power u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly invoked with circumspection, it should be exercised to see that th.e process of law is not abused or misused. At the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court is not to F embark upon an .. nquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made therein. [Para 9] [89-C-D] Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi G (1976) 3 SCC 736: 1976 Suppl. SCR 123; Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 704 - relied on. 85 H 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. A 2.1. In the present case, in the complaint, on the face of it, no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of s. 405 IPC. There is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not B sufficient to show that money has been retained. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal C breach of trust. [Para 18] [96-D-F] 2.2. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut for other remedies. Since no case of criminal breach of trust or dishonest intention of inducement is made out and the essential ingredients of ss. 405/420 IPC are missing, the D prosecution of the appellants u/ss. 406/1208 IPC, is liable to be quashed. [Para 19] [96-H; 97-A] E Case Law Reference: 1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 123 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 704 Relied on Para 9 Relied on Para 10 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2327 of 2014. F From the Judgment & Order date? 18.02.2011 of the High Court of Patna In Crl. Misc. Application No. 10656/2003. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the Appellants. G Prerna Singh, Gopal Singh, Rajiv Kumar, Kusum H Chaudhary for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. • • BINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 87 2. Whether the charges under Section 406 IPC and the A criminal complaint for criminal breach of trust for allegedly retaining the bill amount payable to respondent No.4 is liable to be quashed is the point falling for consideration in this appeal. 3. Payment of bill pertaining to the contract executed by the second respondent in Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University had B a chequered history. Case of second respondent is that contract was entered into between him and K.S.S. College on 4.9.1990 for the construction of building of K.S.S. College, C Lakhisarai, a constituent unit of Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University. According to second respondent, since money and requisite materials were not given to him in time, the work was not completed within stipulated period. The university vide letter dated 9.5.1995, informed the respondent No.2 that his contract is terminated and all his dues including final bill, earnest money D and security deposit etc. will be released after consultation with the College Development C9mmittee. The University Engineer vide letter. dated 4.6.1996, addressed to the Principal of the college, informed that a payment of Rs.48,505/- is payable to the contractor; but the respondent No.2 was not paid the E aforesaid bill amount. Finally, the respondent was paid Rs.14,000/- vide cheque No. EMGCO-OP.Z No. 0127627, as per the direction of the College Development Committee and balance amount of Rs.34,505/- was not paid to him. Aggrieved by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.