LexVEER PRAKASH SHARMA versus ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B VEERPRAKASHSHARMA v. ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL AND ANR. AUGUST I, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3-Section 482-,-Breach of contract- Criminal complaint alleging commission of various offences under Penal C Code-Quashing of-Held: Allegation in the complaint petition did not disclose commission of any offence-Dispute between the parties was a civil dispute--_-Also the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to issue summons since nothing on record io show that any part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the concerned court-Thus, no offence made out-Order taking cognizance quashed-Penal> Code, 1860.-:-ss 406, 409,402· and 417. D Parties entered into contract for sale and purchase of goods. It is alleged that the appellant did not pay some amount due towards the supply of goods and issued cheques which were dishonoured. First Respondent filed a complaint under sections 406, 409, 402 and 417 IPC against the appellant. The court took cognizance· agaiitst the appellant and issued summons. E Appellant filed application for quashing the criminal proceedings. High Court held that the proceedings~ould not be quashed since the allegations being factual in nature, could not be adjudicated in the present application. Hence the present appeal. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence is made out. The order taking cognizance is quashed. (Para 11) (752-E) 2.1. The principle underlying exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court G under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is that the allegations contained in the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety do not disclose an offence or not is the question. (Para 7) (749-G) 2.2. The dispute betweeh the parties was essentially a civil dispute. Non- 746 VEER PRAKASH SHARMA v. ANILKUMARAGARWAL 747 payment or under-payment of ttie price of the goods by itself does not amount A to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having r~ard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in section 405 IPC can be said to have been made out. Neither any allegation has been made to show existence of the ingredients of s. 405 IPC nor 1my statement in that behalf has been made. Ordinarily, bouncing of a cheque constitutes an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Icstruments Act. No complaint B . thereunder had been taken. (Para 811749-H; 750-A, C, DJ Hridaya Ranjan Pr:::sad Verma and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (20001 4 SCC 168 and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd and Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 736, referred to. C 2.3. No act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been alleged by the respondent. No allegation has been made that he had an intention to cheat the respondent from the very inception. What has been alleged in the complaint petition as also the statement of the i;:omplainant and his witnesses relate to his subsequent conduct. The date when such statements were D allegedly made by the appellant had not been disclosed by the witnesses of the complaints. It is really absurd to opine that any such statement would be made by the appellant before all of them at the same time and that too in his own district. Thus, they appear to be wholly unnatural. (Para 9) (751-G-H; 752-Af 2.4. In law, only because he had issued cheques which were dishonoured, E the same by itself would not mean that he had cheated the complainant. Assuming that such a statement had been made, the same does not exhibit that there had been any intention on the part of the appellant to commit an offence under section 417 IPC. [Para 91 [752-B) 2.5. Admittedly, their residences are in different districts. Cheques were F admittedly issued by ~he appellant at his place. There is nothing on record to show that any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court concerned. Even if such statemen!s had been made, the same admittedly have been made cnly at the place where the appellant resides. Therefore, Magistrate, had no jurisdiction to issue the summons. [Para 10] [752-C-D] G . . . Mosarq,• Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd and Ors., [2006) 3 sec 658, relied on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 2001. II 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R. A From the Judgment & Order 03.01.2006
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.