U. DHAR AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 20-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. H~ t: i ~~ 
1i-. ""' ~i 
~I 1·. 
,;Y:.,J?.~~R. A°?'.'JI?..i~~~· 3,~~.. . 
-:i 
' ,, 
_,, 
JI '-1 ;.,,I .A 
•i.-..f ( 
.;~1~l'•· '!Ii ·.-l.1i T ,;,.v .. J·.i, r 1;, •t ·!i'i1; 
· .... ~•1r.1 lf'l.,IU ,-
1 ~'"'·i 
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR. 
'' • ~' 
II ! 
' '" 
''1jANUARY 20 ·2003"'. ,, .. "" 1" 
, 
':··' 
,: 
.. ". 
. .. fl ' 
·' 
lo.' 
·" • 
[M.B.' SHAH AND ARUN'KUMAR, 'JJ:J I"'" 
'· ·' t>. 
B 
' 
·1i 
_41'.UJO 
1_f, 
i.111 
,··.:,:. 
f~·tr11; ,rt t1· 
·11·1:: 
_.,.!t 
·~,h 
~· 
"'.~t! 
J~1.,:f'"\;; 
·11'. 
; 
"'" ,·i Pena{{:ode, .1860-,Sections,40J,: 406,' 420 and.1208._,cognizance of 
.offence under Section~Justificqtiortof....Complainantfillng c'"iminal complatnt 
againstca company ofl'.ilccount of non payment: qfmoney for; .work done.under C 
·ccnttact...Court, taking .. cognizance· and i.Suing, summons~Aggrieved .party 
filing petiticmfor,quashing iof.order-;Jfigh·-Court .dismissing ·the .same-On 
.appeal held, ;since.the dispute,.between . .parties is.ofcMl nature and basic 
.ingredient, of alleged,offence .are ·not :-satisfied,. no. clls<hmade out far .the 
alleged 'ojfence~Hence· order of Magistrate as well asBigh Court quashed. 
·11 
''·'.·l~"1-;J/.jt.~il··L'.·,jr, I !If 
·,o-·1JtJ-.4~oJU'•' uP •.,lfl: 
i-.· 
.. :. 
~·'· 
Bokarp..S!e~I ~lant ~~t.l'¥'te<J .ere.ct\o\I ,part of.c9ntraft for certain 
works to appellant's company who in turn awarded the work to 
coin'plaimlnt-compalty. After cb'mpleting the work complainant-company 
D 
did not receive the payment for the work done under the contract. They 
filed a criminal complaint against appellant's company under Sections 403, 
. 406; 420 and 1208 IPC 'alleging t~_at it~pellant's company had already E 
received money from the Steel plant a"lid had mis-appropriated the sam'e 
for its own use. Judicial Magistrate took cognizance ofthe alleged offence 
and issued summons to appellants. Appellants filed, petition for quashing 
the order. High Court dismissed the petition. Hence the present appeal. 
,q,. 
Appellants contended that complaint relates to purely a civil dispute 
regarding payment of money and· no case for criminal complaint for the 
alleged offen·cesis made oul.i · 
,, 
Allowing the appeals, the Court · 
F 
'"'HELD: ·ti. The dispute of Cllmplahiant even a'ssufuing to be correct, G 
is regarding recovery of money due under the contract which is or'civil 
nature. [449-G; 450-BJ 
'' 
•I 
1.2. Courts below overlooked the fact that the contract regarding 
, · 
,,_, 
. 
• • ,:J 
i. 
'o " , I 
_ ~ 
'.' 
~ 
execu.ti.~.n o,r_ c~rta.i11 .~orks ~~t447n the parties ~r~ separate an.d H 
448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) I S.C.R. 
A independent of each other and also their contractual obligations are separate, 
thus payment under one has no relevance qua the other. (450-C, Fl 
~ 
1.3. The words 'dishonestly' and 'misappropriate' are necessary 
ingredients of an offence under Section 403 IPC. It cannot be said that 
-. 
there is any dishonest intention on the part of appellants nor it can be 
B said that appellant's company or appellants have misappropriated or 
converted the movable property of the complainant to their own use. Even 
if Steel Plant has made the payment to appellant's company under its 
i-
contract with the latter, it will not give rise to plea of misappropriation 
of money because that money is not money or movable property of the 
c 
complainant. Since the basic ingredients of the relevant Settion in the 
Penal Code are not satisfied, the order taking cognizance of the offence 
as well as the issue of summons to appellants is wholly uncalled for. Such 
an order brings about serious repercussions. Thus when no case is made 
out for the alleged offences even as per the complaint filed by complainant, 
+ 
there is no reason to permit appellants to be subjected to trial for the 
D alleged offences. Hence the impugned orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate 
" 
as well as High Court are quashed. (450-D, E, G, H; 451-AI 
I 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Criminal Appeal No. 
~ 
.__ 
70 of 2003. 
.-
~ 
' 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5.2002 of the High Court of 
~ 
Jharkhand in Crl. M.P. No. 4780 of 2001. 
.• 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No. 7112003. 
F 
R.K. Jain and M.K. Dua for the Appellants. 
S.K. Dholakia, Gopa Prasad, M.P. Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy, Sanjeev Mishra 
~ 
and· Anil Kumar Chopra and Anil K. Jha, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
ARUN KUMAR, J. Crl.A.No. 70 of 2003 @ SLP(Crl)No.2654 of 
2002. 
Leave

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