TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 999
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under the name and style of Loknath Feed Centre. The business is registered with Harinkhola-2 Gram Panchayat, and has a valid trade certificate issued in its name. 3. Opposite Party No. 2 is a supplier of chicken and poultry feed. The petitioner has been buying feed from him regularly since 2012, and both parties had a long and smooth business relationship. 4. The supplier usually supplied goods on credit, and the petitioner made payments regularly, in cash, by cheque, and through bank transfer, and the supplier gave receipts for the same. 5. During the period from 1st April, 2013 to 31st March, 2014, the total business transaction taken place between them was of Rs. 1,02,22,252/- out of this, the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs. 75,61,200/-, and the remaining amount was indicated in the supplier's ledger as due. 6. On 19th March, 2014, the supplier himself gave a 3% rebate (discount) on the balance amount, reducing the outstanding dues. This shows that the supplier accepted the accounts and payments. 7. Even after 2014, the business and payments continued regularly. The last payment was made on 12th July 2016, which proves that there was no break in the busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ations, criminal breach of trust and cheating. The opposite party no. 2, tried to paint the business transaction as a criminal offence. The Petitioner is innocent and never committed any offence as alleged by the complainant/opposite party no. 2. As such, the petitioners pray for quashing of the proceeding pending before the Trial court to prevent the abuse of process of law. 15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments to bolster his contention: - i. Dalip Kaur and Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh and Anr. [(2009) 14 SCC 696 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1241] particularly in paragraph no. 31; ii. Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305] particularly in paragraph nos. 31, 33, 34 and 42; iii. Sankar Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. [CRR 1232 of 2023 judgment dated 26.09.2025] particularly in paragraph no. 31; iv. D.K. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. [2025 : CHC - AS: 1371] particularly in paragraph no. 11. 16. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 at the time of call, and no accommodation was soug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n below: 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai and Anr. [(1972) 3 SCC 661] has held as follows:- "To hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise. Such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise." 22. Similarly, in the instant case, there was no evidence to indicate that the petitioners had dishonest or fraudulent intentions at the time the agreement took place to supply poultry feed. A dispute arose between the parties when the opposite party claimed that a huge amount was found due in his ledger. The opposite party no. 2 claimed almost Rs. 40 lakhs in dues for the supply of poultry feed. It was further alleged that the petitioner had not paid the same amount for about one year, giving false assurances. 23. It is an admitted fact that their business transactions continued for a long period and the petitioner made regular payments time to time to the opposite party. Even if there are dues or business transactions or non-payment of dues amount by no stretch of imagination, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red into a business transaction and, in good faith, paid a large amount to the respondents for starting the business. The respondents neither started the business in their own names nor refused to render accounts, nor was the money refunded by that appellant. The question before the Hon'ble Apex Court arose whether in such circumstances the respondents could be held criminally liable under Section 420 IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court, negating the plea of the appellant, observed that even assuming prima facie all the allegations in the complaint to be true, they merely amount to a breach of contract and could not give rise to criminal prosecution. The relevant paragraph has been setout hereinbelow:- "4. We have heard Mr Maheshwari on behalf of the appellant and are of the opinion that no case has been made out against the respondents under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. For the purpose of the present appeal, we would assume that the various allegations of fact which have been made in the complaint by the appellant are correct. Even after making that allowance, we find that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence on the part of the respondents under S....