SACHIN GARG versus STATE OF U.P & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1134 · Decided: 30-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1134 : 2024 INSC 72
Sachin Garg 
v. 
State of U.P & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 2024)
30 January 2024
[Aniruddha Bose* and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In a case wherein the dispute was commercial in nature having 
no element of criminality, whether the Magistrate was justified in 
issuing summons for trial u/ss.406, 504 and 506, Penal Code, 
1860 and the High Court in dismissing the application filed by the 
appellant for quashing said summons and the complaint case.
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Issuance of summons, 
duty of Magistrate – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 504 and 506 – 
Commercial dispute given criminal colour – Dispute between 
the parties related to the rate at which the assigned work was 
to be done – Respondent no.2 filed complaint case – Summons 
issued by Magistrate for trial u/ss.406, 504 and 506, IPC – 
Application filed by the appellant for quashing the summons 
and the complaint case, dismissed by High Court – Propriety:
Held: Past commercial relationship between the appellant’s 
employer and the respondent no.2 was admitted – Dispute between 
the parties centred around the rate at which the assigned work 
was to be done – Neither in the complaint petition nor in the initial 
deposition of the two witnesses (including the complainant), the 
ingredients of the offence u/s.405, IPC surfaced – Such commercial 
disputes over variation of rate cannot per se give rise to an offence 
u/s.405, IPC without presence of any aggravating factor leading 
to the substantiation of its ingredients – No material to come to a 
prima facie finding that there was dishonest misappropriation or 
conversion of any material for the personal use of the appellant in 
relation to gas supplying work done by the respondent no.2 – The 
said work was done in course of regular commercial transactions – 
There was no misappropriation or conversion of the subject property, 
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1135
Sachin Garg v. State of U.P. and Anr.
being Dissolved Acetylene Gas which was supplied to the factory 
for the purpose of battery manufacturing at EIL – No evidence 
for commission of offence u/s.405/406, IPC – Further, as regards 
criminal intimidation also there was a mere bald allegation, short 
of any particulars as regards to the manner in which threat was 
conveyed – While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons 
a magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for 
taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied 
whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding – Magistrate’s 
order issuing summons reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic manner 
– At the stage of issue of summons, though detailed reasoning as 
to why a Magistrate is issuing summons is not necessary but in 
the present case, the allegations made by the complainant do not 
give rise to the offences for which the appellant was summoned for 
trial – A commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved 
through the forum of Civil Court was given criminal colour by lifting 
certain words or phrases from the penal code and implanting 
them in a criminal complaint – Magistrate failed to apply his mind 
in issuing summons and the High Court failed to exercise its 
jurisdiction u/s.482, 1973 Code – Impugned judgment set aside, 
complaint and summoning order quashed. [Paras 14, 17 and 18]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Jurisdiction – 
Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Summons issued by 
Magistrate for trial u/ss.406, 504 and 506, IPC in the complaint 
case filed by Respondent no.2 – Appellant sought dismissal 
of the complaint on the ground that the complaint should 
not have been entertained without arraigning the principal 
company as an accused:
Held: The perceived wrongdoing was attributed to the appellant, 
though the complaint petition acknowledges that the job-work was 
being done for EIL (appellant’s employer) – Moreover, the allegation 
of criminal intimidation was against the appellant directly, whatever 
be the value or quality of such allegations – Thus, for that reason 
the complaint case cannot be rejected at the nascent stage on the 
sole ground of not implicating the company – However, the complaint 
and the summons quashed for the reasons given. [Para 20]
1136
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports 
Case Law Cited
Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs Sangita Rane [2015] 2 SCR 
145 : (2015) 12 SCC 781 – held inapplicable.
Jagdish Ram vs 

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