MIS. MEDCHL CHEMICALS AND PHARMA PVT. LTD. versus M/S. BIOLOGICAL E. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 1169 · Decided: 25-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. MEDCHL CHEMICALS Afl.'D PHARMA PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
M/S. BIOLOGICAL E. LTD. A"ID ORS. 
FEBRt:ARY 25, 2000 
(G.B. PATTANAIK A."ID UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : 
Section 482---Criminal proceedings initiated for breach of co11-
tract-f'roceedi11gs quashed by High Court holding that complaint did not C 
disclose any offence-On appeal Held, jurisdiction of High Court is limited 
and restricted and it must use proper circumspection-Complaint to be ex-
amined in its entirety 011 basis of allegations made--Off ence ought to appear 
ex f acie-High Court has no jurisdiction to examine its com:ctness--lf 110 
offence dfaclvsed there should be no hesitation in quashing proceedings~ln D 
the facts and circumstances of the case the complaint did disclose commis-
sion of offence-Hence complaint and prosecution restored. 
Indian Penal Code, 186(}-Sections 415, 418 and 42o----Essential in-
gredients--Held, guilty intent at the rime of making promise is an essential E 
ingredie/11 and not subsequent failure to fulfil the promise. 
Alternative remedies-Availability of-Held, Court cannot conclude 
that only civil remedy availabl~ot that when civil remedy is available a 
C1iminal prosecution is completely ba"ed. 
The appellants and respondents had entered into an agreement, 
under which the respondents were responsible for consistent supply of raw 
materials, so that no hindrance is caused to the appellant's manufacturing 
activities. The complainant alleged that proper supplies were not effected, 
F 
as per the agreement, which caused huge losses and the same was within G 
the knowledge of the accused persons. Criminal proceedings were initiated 
under Sections 1208, 418, 415 and 420 read with Section 34 I.l'.C. The High 
Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the 
proceedings holding that the complaint did not disclose any offence having 
been committed. Hence this appeal. 
H 
1169 
1170 
SUPREME r:uL:RT Rr.PORJS 
l2lXX!J I S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal and restoring the criminal proceedings, this 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Court 
HELD: 1. Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent as envisaged in 
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to have the complaint 
or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case 
for quashing at the initial stage must be treated as rarest of of rare so as not 
to scuttle the prosecution. The jurisdiction is rather limited and restricted 
and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. If the court on 
perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled 
in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it does not constitute or 
disclose any otrence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise 
upto the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required 
under the law. ~·rustrated litigants ought nut to be indulged to gi'l'e vent to 
their 'l'indicti'l'eness through a legal process and such Jn investigation ought 
not to be allo\\'ed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of 
justice, which is paramount. j 1172-B-F] 
2. It being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under 
Section 482 Cr.P.C. the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined 
on the basis of the .. negation made in the complaint and the High Court 
at that stage has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or 
examine its correctness. Whatever appean on the face of the complaint 
shall be taken into consideration without anJ critical examination but the 
olfence ought to appear ex facie 011 the complaint. ! 1180-A-B] 
Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeran11a Silivali11gappu Ku11jalgi, [1976] 3 SCC 736, 
relied 011. 
3. In order to attract the provisions of Sections 418 and 420, the 
guilty intent at the time of making the promise is a requirement and an 
essential ingredient thert'lo and "ubsequent failure to fulfil the promise by 
itself would not attract the prm isicms of Section 418 or 420. ,ifcn.1 rea is 
one of the essential ingredients of the olfence of cheating under Section 
420. (1179-C] 
Ram fas v. State of U.P., [19701 2 Sl'C 740; Pratibha Rani v. Suraj 
Kumar, [1985] SCl' Crl. 180 and L. V. J adhav v. Shanka"ao Abasaheb 
Pawar, I 1983] 4 sec 231, relied cm. 
H 
4.1. lt is well 'ettled that the allegations in th<!! complaint will have 
. 
.\ 
I 
MEDCHL CHEMICALS AND PHARMA P. LID. v. BIOLOGICAL E. LTD. 1171 
·to be accepted on the face of i

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