LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

RIKHAB BIRANI & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1334 · Decided: 16-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SANJAY KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1334 : 2025 INSC 512
Rikhab Birani & Anr. 
v. 
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2061 of 2025)
16 April 2025
[Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the s.482, CrPC 
application filed by the appellants despite the matter being civil 
in nature.
Headnotes†
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – ss.482, 173 (2) – Penal Code, 
1860 – ss.406, 420, 354, 504, 506 – Alleged breach of oral 
sale agreement – Eventually, FIR registered by respondent 
No.2 against the appellants after dismissal of the criminal 
complaint holding that the matter is of civil nature – Application 
for quashing of FIR and chargesheet filed by the appellants, 
dismissed by High Court – Challenge to:
Held: Impugned order set aside – Ingredients of the offences 
alleged not made out – A breach of contract does not give rise to 
criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest 
intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction – Merely 
an allegation of failure to keep a promise will not be enough to 
initiate criminal proceedings – Thus, the dishonest intention on 
the part of the party who is alleged to have committed the offence 
of cheating should be established at the time of entering into the 
transaction with the complainant, otherwise the offence of cheating 
is not established or made out – Chargesheet is bereft of particulars 
and details required and mandated in terms of s.173(2) merely 
reproducing the contents of the FIR – FIR does not state the 
material and evidence available and collected during the course of 
the investigation to establish the offences u/ss.420, 406, 354, 504 
and 506, IPC – FIR and chargesheet quashed. [Paras 7, 19, 25, 26]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Issuance of process by 
Magistrate – Duty of Courts:
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
1335
Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Held: It is the duty and obligation of the court to exercise a great 
deal of caution in issuing process, particularly when the matter is 
essentially of civil nature – Though the Magistrate is not required 
to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence 
on record to set criminal proceedings into motion – Magistrate 
should carefully scrutinize the evidence on record and may even 
put questions to the complainant/investigating officer etc. to elicit 
answers to find out the truth about the allegations – Summoning 
order has to be passed when the complaint or chargesheet discloses 
an offence and when there is material that supports and constitutes 
essential ingredients of the offence – The summoning order should 
not be passed lightly or as a matter of course. [Paras 20, 21]
Judicial Deprecation – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420 – Failure 
to distinguish between civil wrongs and criminal offences – 
Cases of civil wrongs turned into criminal proceedings by 
filing chargesheets, etc. – Practice deprecated:
Held: During the last couple of months, a number of judgments/
orders have been pronounced by this Court, especially in cases 
arising from the State of Uttar Pradesh, deprecating the stance of 
the Police as well as the courts in failing to distinguish between 
a civil wrong in the form of a breach of contract, non-payment of 
money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms; and a 
criminal offence u/ss.420 and 406, IPC, the ingredients of which 
are quite different and requires mens rea at the time when the 
contract is entered into itself to not abide by the terms thereof – 
Costs of β‚Ή50,000/- imposed on the State of Uttar Pradesh – State  
may conduct internal enquiries and collect this amount from the 
delinquent and responsible officers. [Paras 15-19, 28, 29]
Case Law Cited
Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh 
and Another [2024] 8 SCR 670 : (2024) 10 SCC 690; Kunti and 
Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2023) 6 SCC 109; 
Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another (2023) 5 SCC 360; 
G. Sagar Suri and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [2000] 1 
SCR 417 : (2000) 2 SCC 636; Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others v. 
State of West Bengal and Others [2022] 1 SCR 884 : (2022) 7 
SCC 124; Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 
Another (2023) 3 SCC 423; Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of 
Uttar Pradesh and Another [2024] 6 SCR 86 : 2024 SCC OnLine 
SC 726 – relied on.
1336
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. S

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