Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-004281-004281 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 51744/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether a complaint under Sections 406/420 IPC can survive if it lacks specific allegations of fraudulent or dishonest intention at inception, fails to plead entrustment, is unduly delayed and appears mala fide? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that for cheating under Section 420 IPC the dishonest or fraudulent intent must exist at the time of making the representation and cannot be presumed from mere non-performance; no such intention was pleaded. For criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC there must be entrustment and dishonest misappropriation; the complaint did not allege any lawful entrustment. Cheating and breach of trust are distinct offences and cannot coexist on the same facts. A delay of eight years and mala fide prosecution, coupled with an available civil remedy, justified exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; the Supreme Court itself |
| Follows | Inder Mohan Goswami (2007) 12 SCC 1; Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) IPC are mutually exclusive and cannot be alleged on identical facts.
- Confirms that Section 420 IPC requires specific allegations of dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of making the promise.
- Emphasises that an inordinate delay (eight years) in lodging complaint, when unexplained, gives rise to mala fide inference and can justify quashing under inherent powers.
- Affirms the broad scope of Section 482 CrPC to prevent misuse of criminal process and vindictive litigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The complaint and FIR were tested against the ingredients of Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC.
- Under Section 420 IPC (as interpreted in Inder Mohan Goswami), proof of fraudulent/dishonest intention at inception is essential; the complaint lacked any such averment.
- Under Section 406 IPC, entrustment and dishonest misappropriation must be pleaded; no entrustment was shown.
- Cheating (Section 420) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406) are antithetical and cannot coexist on the same facts (Delhi Race Club).
- The complaint was delayed by nearly eight years without explanation, raising suspicion of mala fide motives.
- The existence of an alternate civil remedy further indicated abuse of the criminal process.
- Invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Bhajan Lal), the Court quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
Factual Background
In February 2013 the appellant executed an agreement for sale of two parcels of land for a total consideration of ₹43 lakh and received ₹20 lakh as advance. After nearly eight years, the complainant filed a criminal complaint and an FIR alleging offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC for non-transfer of title and non-refund of money. The parties mediated and agreed a settlement of ₹24 lakh in instalments; the appellant defaulted. Anticipatory bail was granted by the Judicial Commissioner, later cancelled on the complainant’s application. The Jharkhand High Court refused to quash the proceedings, leading to the present appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 420 IPC: Requires proof of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the representation.
- Section 406 IPC: Criminal breach of trust demands lawful entrustment followed by dishonest misappropriation or conversion.
- Section 120B IPC: Punishes parties to criminal conspiracy.
- Section 482 CrPC: Empowers courts to exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and to quash proceedings that do not disclose a prima facie offence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms established legal principles under Inder Mohan Goswami and Bhajan Lal regarding the scope of Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 482 CrPC.