M N G BHARATEESH REDDY versus RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 1097 · Decided: 18-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1097
M N G BHARATEESH REDDY
v.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No 1273 of 2022)
AUGUST 18, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A S BOPANNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 120A, 405, 415, 420, 499, 500 – In
the instant case the first respondent was employed as a Consultant
Neurosurgeon by BGS Apollo Hospital – Consultancy Agreement
was entered into between the first respondent and the hospital
containing his terms of engagement – One of the terms of the
engagement was that either party may terminate the agreement, with
or without cause, by giving a prior notice of thirty days –
Differences arose between the first respondent and the management
of the hospital – First respondent wrote a letter to the General
Manager of the hospital alleging that patients referred to him were
being diverted to other doctors of the hospital at the enquiry/
reception counter – The services of the first respondent were
terminated on 30 May 2014 for inconsistent and unsatisfactory
behavior in terms of the Consultancy Agreement – Aggrieved first
respondent furnished a representation on 31 May 2014 to the
Managing Director of hospital highlighting gross irregularities in
the billing of patients and he also alleged that the General Manager
had been threatening and maligning him – Thereafter first respondent
filed a complaint before Judicial Magistrate – In his complaint, he
alleged that the General Manager misused his authority and
terminated his services with an oblique and ulterior motive of
defaming him – Magistrate took cognizance under ss.120A, 405,
415, 420, 499, and 500 of IPC – Sessions Judge set aside the order
of the Magistrate on the ground that the complaint did not disclose
the ingredients of the offences of defamation or cheating and that
the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence
punishable under s.420 of the IPC – High Court held that no case
was made out against the General Manager under ss.499 and 500
of the IPC however, there were material on record which prima facie
disclosed the offences u/ss.405 and 420 of the IPC – Hence instant
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1097
1097
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
appeal – Held: The grievance of the first respondent arose from the
termination of his services at the hospital and the allegations
indicated that there was an improper billing in respect of the surgical
services which were rendered by the complainant at the hospital
which at the most indicated a breach of terms of the Consultancy
Agreement by the General Manager, which was essentially in the
nature of a civil dispute – There was no allegation that the
complainant was as a consequence induced to deliver any property
or to consent that any person shall retain any property or that he
was deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would have not
done or omitted to do if he was not so deceived – None of the
ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust were
demonstrated on the allegations in the complaint as they stand –
First respondent alleged that the General Manager caused breach
of trust by issuing grossly irregular bills, which adversely affected
his professional fees but an alleged breach of the contractual terms
does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of
trust without there being a clear case of entrustment – No element
of entrustment was  prima facie established based on the facts and
circumstances of the instant matter.
Penal Code, 1860: s.405 and s.415 – Essential ingredients –
Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court held
HELD: 1. The ingredients of the offence under Section 415
emerge from a textual reading. Firstly, to constitute cheating, a
person must deceive another. Secondly, by doing so the former
must induce the person so deceived to (i) deliver any property to
any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any
property; or (iii) intentionally induce 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 such an act or omission must cause or
be likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property. Section 420 deals with cheating and
dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The ingredients of
Sections 415 and 420 are not made out in the present case. The
grievance of the first respondent arises from the termination of
his services at the hospital. The allegations indicate that there
was an improper billin

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