V. RAVI KUMAR versus STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SALEM, TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 828 · Decided: 14-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
828                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
V. RAVI KUMAR
v.
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME
BRANCH, SALEM, TAMIL NADU & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2011)
DECEMBER 14, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 420 and 409 r/w. s.34 – Appellant
alleged that he supplied cotton lint to a Mill for conversion into
yarn, however, all the respondents-accused connived with each other
and sold entire lint and appropriated the sale proceeds – Complaint
was filed by the appellant – FIR was registered u/ss. 420 and
409 r/w. s.34 of IPC on basis of appellant’s complaint – Respondent
Nos. 2 to 13 filed petition u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR –
High Court quashed the FIR on the grounds that the appellant had
withdrawn an earlier complaint without assigning reasons, the
transaction being commercial in nature, the ingredients of the
offences alleged were absent; and that the remedy lay in filing a
civil suit – Propriety of – Held: Where the accused seeks quashing
of the FIR, invoking inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is
wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual
arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint
– Furthermore, it was not a case of breach of contract simplicitor
but there were serious allegations of forgery of documents, use of
blank letter-head, papers and cheque leaves of the appellant – In
instant case, there were allegations which prima facie constituted
ingredients of offences u/ss. 420, 409 and 34 of IPC in complaint –
The correctness of the allegations could be adjudged only at the
trial when evidence is adduced – Also, mentioning of reasons for
withdrawal of an earlier complaint is also not a condition precedent
for maintaining a second complaint – Thus, High Court erred in
law in dismissing the complaint which certainly disclosed an offence
prima facie.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 828
828
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Where the accused seeks quashing of the FIR,
invoking inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly
impermissible for the High Court to enter into  the  factual  arena
to  adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the  complaint.
[Para 32][837-F-G]
2. Every breach of contract does not give rise to an offence
of cheating. The language and tenor of Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd.,
particularly, the observation that breach of contract would give
rise to an offence of cheating only in those cases where there
was any deception played at the very inception, is to be
understood in the context of the facts of that case and accordingly
construed.  The phrase “in those cases where there was any
deception played at the very inception” cannot be read out of
context.  This is not a case of breach of contract simplicitor but
there are serious allegations of forgery of documents, use of
blank letter-head, papers and cheque leaves of the appellant.
[Para 36][838-E-G]
3. In this case, there were clear allegations of fraud and
cheating which prima facie constitute offences under Section 420
of the Indian Penal Code. The correctness of the allegations can
be adjudged only at the trial when evidence is adduced.  At this
stage,  it was not for the High Court to enter into factual arena
and decide whether the allegations were correct or whether the
same were a counter-blast to any proceedings initiated by the
respondents. [Para 37][838-H; 839-A-B]
4.  In Jatinder Singh, this Court clearly held that if dismissal
of the complaint was not on merit, but on default of the
complainant, moving the Magistrate again with a second complaint
on the same facts is maintainable. But if the dismissal of the
complaint under Section 203 of the Code was on merits, the
position could be different. [Para 38][839-B-C]
5. The failure to mention the first complaint in the
subsequent one is also inconsequential as held, in effect, in
Jatinder Singh.  Mentioning of reasons for withdrawal of an earlier
complaint is also not a condition precedent for maintaining a
second complaint. The High Court clearly erred in law in
dismissing the complaint, which certainly disclosed an offence
prima facie. [Para 39][839-D]
V. RAVI KUMAR v. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
DISTT. CRIME BRANCH, SALEM, T.N.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Jatinder Singh and Others v. Ranjit Kaur 2001 (2) SCC
570 : [2001] 1 SCR 707 ; Vesa Holding
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.