Contract dispute and absent fraudulent intent justified quashing cheating and conspiracy prosecution against company officers.

Allegations arising from a supply contract did not disclose fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, so the ingredients of cheating and criminal conspiracy were not made out and the prosecution could not be sustained. The dispute remained contractual in nature, the project had been commissioned and operated, and the later replacement of defective parts reinforced the absence of a prima facie criminal offence. Proceedings against the Managing Director and Director were also unsustainable because the company was not arraigned as an accused and the complaint lacked specific averments of vicarious liability. The SC therefore quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the FIR and charge-sheet disclosed the offence of cheating or criminal conspiracy so as to justify continuation of the prosecution; (ii) whether the prosecution could be sustained against the Managing Director and Director when the company was not arraigned as an accused and there were no specific averments of vicarious liability.

Issue (i): Whether the FIR and charge-sheet disclosed the offence of cheating or criminal conspiracy so as to justify continuation of the prosecution.

Analysis: The allegations related to supply of allegedly sub-standard turbines under a contract. The materials on record did not show any specific averment that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction. The dispute arose out of a contractual arrangement, the project had been commissioned and had remained operational, and the defective parts were later replaced. In the absence of the foundational ingredients of cheating, the criminal process could not be sustained merely because civil and contractual issues also existed. The principles governing exercise of inherent powers permitted quashing where no prima facie offence was made out.

Conclusion: The prosecution for cheating and conspiracy was not maintainable on the allegations as made.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution could be sustained against the Managing Director and Director when the company was not arraigned as an accused and there were no specific averments of vicarious liability.

Analysis: The main allegations were directed against the company, yet the company itself was not made an accused. The complaint and charge-sheet did not contain specific averments showing that the Managing Director or Director were in charge of the company's affairs in a manner attracting vicarious liability. In the absence of such foundational allegations, proceedings against the officers alone could not continue.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the Managing Director and Director was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings against the appellants were quashed under the Court's inherent jurisdiction, while the proceedings against the remaining accused were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint arising out of a contract does not allege fraudulent intention at inception and does not contain specific averments attracting vicarious liability against company officers, criminal proceedings for cheating and conspiracy may be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

---