RAJESH BAJAJ versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 1012 · Decided: 12-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJESH BAJAJ 
v. 
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 
MARCH 12, 1999 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S. SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
· Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--Section 482--Quashing of criminal 
complaint-Complainant induced to enter into a commercial transactioJt-
Payment as per the invoice was not made after delivery of goods-complaint 
C lodged containing all relevant facts-High Co wt quashed the complaint hold-
ing, it did not disclose offence of cheating and that it was purely a commercial 
transaction where payment assured was not made-011 appeal Held, if factual 
foundation is laid then complaint need not reproduce ingredients of offence 
alleged-Court should not hasten to quash proceedings at investigation 
D stage--Quashing of complaint 011 ground that it disclosed only a commercial 
transaction not justified-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 415 and 420. 
Constitution of India-Article 226-Quashing of criminal Com-
plaint-Meticulous scrntiny of all ingredients of offence not needed--Hyper-
technical approach adopted by court may be justified during trial but not 
E during the stage of investigation--lndian Penal Code, 1860-Sectir:ms 415 and 
420. 
The appellant belongs to a company manufacturing and exporting 
garments. Respondent No. 5 approached him as a representative of a 
German company to purchase garments for export. He induced the appel-
F lant to believe that payments shall be made on receiving the invoice. The 
goods were delivered along with the invoices by the appellant, but only a 
part of the payment due was received. Respondent agreed under a second 
understanding reached between the parties to pay the aruount due. This 
understanding was also not honoured. The appellant filed a complaint 
G stating all the relevant facts and also alleged that the respondent had 
duped many other manufacturers through this modus operandi. 
High Court quashed the FIR as it found that the complaint did not 
disclose commission of any offence of cheating punishable under Section 
420 I.P.C., that there was nothing to indicate a dishonest or fraudulent 
H intention and that.it was purely a commercial transaction where balance 
1012 
RAJESH BAJAJ v. STATE 
1013 
amount of the goods received was not paid as per the assurance made. A 
Hence this appeal by the complaint. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. 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 he should state in so many words that 
the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the 
definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous 
scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the 
complaint, is not needed at this stage. If factual foundation for the offence 
has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash 
criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that 
one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an 
FIR the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic 
facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. [1016-A-C] 
State of Ha1ya11a v. Bhajan Lal, [1992] Supp. 1 SCC 335, relied on. 
2. The facts narrated in the complaint would as well reveal a commer-
cial transaction or money transaction but that is hardly a reason for 
holding that offence of cheating would elude from such transactions. It is 
the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and 
not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in discerning 
whether an offence was committed or not. [1016-F] 
3. The hyper-technical approach adopted by the High Court for test-
ing ingredients under Section 415 IPC may be justified during trial but 
certainly not during the stage of investigation. [1017-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
295 of 1999. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.98 of the Delhi High Court G 
in Crl. W. No. 640 of 1998. 
R.K. Jain, Aseem Mehrotra and A.P. Medh for the Appellant. 
K.N. Rawal, Additional, Solicitor General, Anil Katiyar, S.W.A. 
Quadri, Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondents Nos. 1-2. 
H 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Arun Jaitley, A.K. Sinha and Neeraj Choudhary for the Respondent 
B 
No. 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMAS, J. Leave granted. 
Appella

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