HRIDAYA RANGAN PD. VERMA AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 31-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-----
HRIDAYA RANGAN PD. VERMA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. 
MARCH 31, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Inherent powers-
Exercise of-He Id, the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P. C. is to be 
exercised either to prevent abuse of process of the Cou11 or othenvise to secure 
the ends of justice-Held futther, power of quashing of a criminal proceeding 
C 
is to be exercise very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the 
rarest of rare cases. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 415, 418, 420, 423, 469, 504 and 
120B-Offence of cheating-Ingredients of, enumerated-Held, to hold a per-
son guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or 
D 
dishonest intention right at the beginning of the transaction-Mere breach of 
contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating-In the preserf_t 
case, the allegtion that the appellants did not disclose at the time of sale of the 
propetty in question, the fact that one of their brothers had filed a pattition suit 
which was pending, held, did not constitute (he offence of cheating or-other 
offences alleged in the complaint-Reading the averments in the complaints in 
entirety and accepting the allegations to be true, the ingredients of intentional 
deception on the pa11 of the accused right at the beginning of the negotiations 
for the transaction has neither been expressly stated nor indirectly suggested in 
the complaint-In such a situation, continuing the criminal proceeding against 
the accused/appellants will be an abuse of process of the Coutt-Complaint 
pending against the appellants quashed. 
The three appellants herein succeeded to the property in question 
along with their three other brothers after the death of their father. They 
agreed to sell the land to respondent No. 2, a co-operative society in 
pursuance of which the respondent made a part payment to the appel-
lants. Thereafter, the appellants executed a registered sale deed in favour 
of the society wherein two other brothers of the appellants signed as 
witnesses. By way of a further safeguard, the appellant executed a sepa-
rate indemnity deed on the same day in which they undertook to indem-
nify any loss caused to the society on account of any objection which may 
859 
E 
F 
G 
H 
860 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
be raised by any co-sharer against transfer of the land in future. The land 
was delivered to the society on the same day. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Prior to the execution of the sale deed, one the brothers of the 
appellants had filed a suit for partition of the properties left by their 
father and division by metes and bounds. 
On registration of the sale deed, the respondent society handed over 
three cheques to the appellants for the balance amount. However, the said 
cheques were dishonoured on presentation on account of insufficiency of 
amount. Repeated requests to the respondent society to pay the balance 
amount were not acceded to. Finally, the appellants sent a notice to the 
respondent society through their advocate but to no avail. The appellants 
lodged an FIR under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC against the respond-
ent society. They also filed three suits for realisation of the amount due to 
them. 
Shortly thereafter, the Respondent society filed complaint in the 
Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the appellants alleging 
commission of offences under Sections 418, 420, 423, 469, 504 and 120B of 
Indian Penal Code. The respondent society alleged that the appellants had 
cheated the society by giving false, concocted and wrongful information 
and assurances thereby inducing the society to enter into negotiations and 
also to advance them a heavy amount with ulterior design to acquire 
wr~ngful gain to themselves and for wrongful loss to the Society. 
The petition filed by the appellants before the High Court for quash-
ing the aforesaid complaint was dismissed. ~ence the present appeals. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the complaint 
against them by the respondent society was a counter blast to the criminal 
case and the civil suits filed by them against the respondent society. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court. 
G 
HELD : 1. The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should he 
exercised 'very sparingly and '~ith circumspection and that too in the 
rarest of rare cases.' .Jhe extraordinary power under Article 226 of the 
Consti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.