TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed-appellant, Paramjeet Singh and refusing to quash the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 11/2023 dated 14.02.2023 that was filed by Kushal K. Rana, the complainant/respondent No. 3 proprietor of M/s Soma Stone Crusher. 3. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 217/2025 has been preferred by accused-petitioner, Sarabjit Singh, being aggrieved by the chargesheet submitted on 27.07.2023 arising out of the very same FIR No. 11/2023 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, Kangra District, Himachal Pradesh wherein both Paramjeet Singh and Sarabjit Singh were arraigned as accused and charged under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC' for short). In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 11/2023 and all the subsequent proceedings emanating from it. 4. Since both the appeal and writ petition arise from the same facts and circumstances, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The appellant and the writ petitioner shall henceforth be referred to as the 'appellants'. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are brothers runnin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. v. Due to the delivery of a product with wrong specifications and failure to replace the same by the appellant, the complainant/respondent No. 3 has suffered a loss of Rs. 50 lakhs and hence liable for the offence of breach of trust. 9. Upon completion of the investigation with respect to the FIR, a final police report was submitted before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisinghpur charging the appellants of offences under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC. Thereafter, Paramjeet Singh preferred a petition before the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC as Cr. MMO No.288/2013 praying for the relief of quashing of all the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 11/2023. The High Court by the impugned order dated 02.01.2024 dismissed the said application. 10. Hence, the present appeal and the writ petition. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as respondent-complainants. We have perused the material on record. 12. We have given our thorough consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and the material on record. 13. The contents of the FIR as well as the chargesheet would have to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the beginning." 15. In light of facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the complainant/respondent No. 3 has failed to make out a case that satisfies the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC. We fail to understand as to how the allegations against the appellants herein could be brought within the scope and ambit of the aforesaid Section 420 IPC. On a bare perusal of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet, we do not find that the offence of cheating as defined under Section 420 IPC is made out at all and we do not find that there is any cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver any property of a valuable security involved in the instant case. 16. It is settled law that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant/respondent No. 3 was required to show that the appellants had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or representation of buying the said 'r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s further observed that for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or representation. It was further observed that even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out and that the real test is, whether, the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating. 19. Furthermore, in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami, it was held by this Court that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. It was further held by this Court that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion that to continue the criminal proceedings against the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....each a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 21. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dictum, we find that none of the offences alleged against the appellants herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against the appellants herein have been made with a mala fide intent and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102, extracted above, squarely apply to the f....