Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by Ajay Ramesh Bhute and Ramesh Sadashiv Bhute (the applicants) against an order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Criminal Revision No.85/2010. The Sessions Judge had set aside the order dated 22.6.2010 passed by the trial Magistrate on Exh. 57, whereby the Magistrate had discharged the applicants in a complaint case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint was lodged by M/s Jai Matadi Electronics through its proprietor Bharat R. Kungar (respondent no.1) alleging that the accused no.1, Ajay Bhute, came to the shop to buy a Sansui television for Rs.19,990/- on credit, promising to pay the amount soon. Since the complainant was on cordial terms with Ajay, he agreed to sell the TV on credit. Ajay gave a cheque dated 14.9.2006 drawn on Wardha Nagari Sahakari Adhikosh Bank, which was dishonored on 15.9.2006 as the account was closed. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 18.9.2006, but the amount was not paid. The trial Magistrate, after considering the police report and documents, discharged the applicants holding that the dispute was purely of a civil nature and no prima facie case under Section 420 IPC was made out. The Sessions Judge, in revision, set aside the discharge order and directed the Magistrate to reappreciate the evidence of the complainant to determine whether a case under Section 420 IPC was made out. The applicants challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision, holding that the Sessions Judge exceeded his revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court observed that the revisional court can interfere only if there is an illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness in the findings, and cannot act as an appellate court to reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Court noted that the trial Magistrate had correctly appreciated the material and found that the transaction was a simple breach of contract, as the cheque was given for a pre-existing debt and there was no evidence of dishonest intention at the inception. The Court emphasized that for an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deliver property, and mere non-payment of price does not constitute cheating. The High Court quashed the Sessions Court's order and restored the order of discharge passed by the trial Magistrate.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of Revision - Section 397, 401 CrPC - The revisional court can interfere only if there is an illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness in the findings of the subordinate court; it cannot act as an appellate court and reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 2-5) B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating - Ingredients of Section 420 IPC - Section 420 IPC - For an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deliver property, and the deception must be from the inception of the transaction; mere non-payment of price or breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless there is fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. (Paras 3-5) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge - Order of Discharge - Section 239 CrPC - The trial Magistrate, after considering the police report and documents, found that the dispute was purely of a civil nature and no prima facie case under Section 420 IPC was made out; the order of discharge was legally sustainable. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order of discharge passed by the trial Magistrate and directing the Magistrate to reappreciate the evidence of the complainant to find out whether a case under Section 420 IPC is made out.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, quashed the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No.85/2010, and restored the order of discharge dated 22.6.2010 passed by the trial Magistrate.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction
- Scope of revision against discharge
- Section 397 CrPC
- Section 401 CrPC
- Section 420 IPC
- Cheating
- Dishonest inducement
- Deception
- Mens rea
- Breach of contract
- Criminal breach of trust
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
