High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/42479/2023allowed

Bhawna Nimbrayan v. State Of Punjab And Another

2025-01-09Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar7 pages

# !

$!% &

#%'

(

!"#"$%

!) !$*+),,

-.)*

)!%

.)*

& !

.)*

! !& (/% !. )0#%'

!& +

)!!

.)*

!!(

&' (

((!

"-,

(! ( %! & 2 ! - #!%!.

! !!#.! !* "4!5% ,

(%,67 !,

8 %!& 7#!, !

#-&

%-- (%! 0 ! . ! &)&

! 3)9%! #4. -- -- % 5% (!, !,

. !-"(% . !

!*, !

#%'

:& +.%-- (%!!

--,

*( + . !,% ! 88

!( . !

'/% ! !

'/% !

!;! - !.1!( .

*-*

! -(% 7 --,

'/% !<

, ,

(,!&% 5% -". !

'/% !

(-- ! . . =

! !6%!

!!.

--,

";,

+ !( .!

%%- -" !! % .8. =

& + %

(%!((!%!, "( + ,!

(- . 1!( ),,!* "

. !( (- - ((-

(-# +%- .

&&#.&)&

!) !

-5%!".

(%,67

!, !

! %%!& 7#

> !%-!

!inter alia

!--- --

( %- ! (

(- .

%--+ -, 1 !!.

,! !

%%- !( - !-",

!*!.

!!.8. =!

*- , .

!*&&

+ -% !.

-% !

+ 1 - !-"

!( )-.

!!. . =

+ *- ) --".

" '

! %

> !%-%!

! !,%

(%,67(-"

% ! -

67 !, 2

!, !%!

& . . 8.2). 87#3)9%!#4

-, "

> -". *!!

! " !,%-,

! %

" ! !- ! " !,%- - %!!

(- * -

"( + ,! --

!, !

'%, !! "

?; -&%(!%!

@Archana Rana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another' 2021(3) SCC 751, 'Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs. Sudha Seetharam' 2019(16) SCC 739, 'Vijay Kumar Ghai and others vs. The State of West Bengal and others' 2022(7) SCC 124 and 'Anupriya Pal vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh' 2019 (4) SCC 643.

#! . - ! %- ! !( (- %

*!" (,

*, +

(- .

, . "

!(!

! !- !-" % !,!" !

-!!

+ "%

! "*

- .8. =

- !-"

1 - !!

!, "

--(!

% 5%! "+(!!" 7 .

! "%!!

! + !*!.

(- !* "

( +. 5% +.)1 !! "

!% (!

! - !1 --,

-*--

( !!%

%!.

%-"(!*%!,

%! * ,

6 -(!

%!& #1 %. %

! *%!

((!

"-,

(

*, !

- !%-!

( !(!%,

! -

%--+ 9

!",! % ,

%!& 7# ")%*+$ ,"-%*$.-$//*#,+$"#%01*$/2)*$./"0*3"!1+4 5!+5"!%1 Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

8 )

A%,

?; - &%(! %!

Mariam Fasihuddin & Another vs. State by Adugodi Police Station and another. ( +,

!%, A% &%!"

/ .

-- , !*

"11. It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (I) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mensrea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made." ?

*,,

!%,

₹ (

! % .8. =!

< ? *!.

!* -

!( !

( 1

( " -!(!

%%- %

!6%!

(- % -B

% * -

!! !,%-

6 -

1 -,! %

-%!& 7#.

!!. 7 -(!

- !!. . =

!- !-"

9 % " - "(-

( !%-

-".

*!(% !

!*!"

,-* +(-

(

1 --,-" * -

" ( + ,1 .

!5%! !

%%- ! % -*!(!(!

"7-,

*. ₹ *

- .8. = %---

- ,! & 7#1 !,%- .( . !

%%- % ,

,)!,-".

! -- -%!& 7#-

!, !(- Lalit Chaturvedi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. Criminal Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13485 of 2023),

?; -&%(!%!

-- "7. Similar elucidation by this Court in "V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat"5, explicitly states that a contractual dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to initiation of a criminal proceeding. The ingredient of 'cheating', as defined under Section 415 of the IPC, is existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of making initial promise or representation thereof, from the very beginning of the formation of contract. Further, in the absence of the averments made in the complaint petition wherefrom the ingredients of the offence can be found out, the High Court should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Section 482of the Cr. P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court, as it serves a salutary purpose viz. a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years, when no criminal offence is made out. It is one thing to say that a case has been made out for trial and criminal proceedings should not be quashed, but another

7 thing to say that a person must undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no offence has been made out in the complaint. This Court in V.Y. Jose (supra) placed reliance on several earlier decisions in "Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI", "Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.", "Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal" and "All Cargo Movers (I) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain." 2

!%! ! ( !%!

& 2!#

+ %!

! -(!, !

-- % (

! - (!, - % " !( %

)

A%,

?; - &%(! %!

Vesa Holdings P. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015) 8 SCC 293&( +,

!%,

(( .A.

!* -- "9. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. In our view the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be malafide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings."

% *.

( --

67 !,

8 %!& 7#!, !

#-&

%-- (%!0 ! . ! &)&

! --% 5% (!, !,

!! !5% 5%

! #, -- % ((-

34. ".

-- -

( '

( 6

!( +,=! D=

!!(!

- D=