1999 (3) TMI 640 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed; FIR quashing under Section 420 IPC set aside-investigation to proceed over alleged inducement and intent

SC allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order quashing the FIR under Section 420 IPC and directed that investigation proceed. The Court held ... Quashing of FIR u/s 420 IPC - lack of disclosure of offence and dishonest intention - modus operandi - HELD THAT:- The crux of the postulate is the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in discerning whether there was commission of offence or not. The complainant has stated in the body of the complaint that he was induced to believe that respondent would honour payment on receipt of invoices, and that the complainant realised later that the intentions of the respondent were not clear. He also mentioned that respondent after receiving the goods have sold them to others and still he did not pay the money. Such averments would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authorities. The High Court seems to have adopted a strictly hyper-technical approach and sieved the complaint through a cullendar of finest gauzes for testing the ingredients under Section 415, IPC. Such an endeavour may be justified during trial, but certainly not during the stage of investigation. At any rate, it is too premature a stage for the High Court to step in and stall the investigation by declaring that it is a commercial transaction simplicitor wherein no semblance of criminal offence is involved. The appellant is, therefore, right in contending that the FIR should not have been quashed in this case and the investigation should have been allowed to proceed. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. Issues involved: Quashing of FIR u/s 420 IPC by Delhi High Court based on lack of disclosure of offence and dishonest intention.Summary:The appellant lodged an FIR u/s 420 IPC with the police, which was quashed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The High Court found that the complaint did not disclose the offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC. The appellant, aggrieved by this decision, filed a special leave petition. The complaint alleged that the respondent induced the appellant to believe in a commercial transaction involving the purchase of Readymade garments, but failed to pay the full amount as promised. The High Court's basis for quashing the FIR included the lack of dishonest or fraudulent intention by the respondent at the time of the transaction and the purely commercial nature of the dealings.The High Court's decision was challenged, arguing that the complaint laid a factual foundation for the offence of cheating and that quashing the FIR during the investigation stage should be rare and only when the basic facts necessary for the offence are absent. The Supreme Court emphasized that the intention of the accused inducing the victim is crucial in determining the commission of the offence, not just the nature of the transaction. The appellant contended that the FIR should not have been quashed, and the investigation should have been allowed to proceed.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and emphasizing the importance of investigating allegations of cheating even in commercial transactions, especially when there are indications of fraudulent inducement and non-payment as alleged in the complaint.