Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Satish @ Sanjay Dagadu Padwal, filed a criminal complaint against respondent No.2, Ashok Shivaji Padwal, alleging offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint stated that the petitioner and respondent were friends, and the respondent borrowed Rs.30,000 from the petitioner by cheque, promising to repay after one year. After one year, the respondent issued a cheque for Rs.25,000, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The petitioner sent a legal notice, but the respondent gave a false reply. The Magistrate issued process against the respondent. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which allowed the revision, set aside the order issuing process, and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner then approached the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the complaint and found that the allegations only disclosed a civil liability for non-repayment of a loan. There was no entrustment of property as required for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, and no deception at the time of borrowing to constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC. The court held that the revisional court's order was correct and did not warrant interference. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust - Sections 406, 420 IPC - Loan Transaction - The complaint alleged that the respondent borrowed Rs.30,000 and later issued a cheque for Rs.25,000 which was dishonoured. The court held that the transaction was purely civil in nature, as there was no entrustment of property for criminal breach of trust, and no deception at the inception for cheating. The revisional court correctly dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. (Paras 5-8) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 203 CrPC - Dismissal of Complaint - The revisional court set aside the order issuing process and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. The High Court upheld this, finding no error in the revisional order, as the complaint did not disclose any criminal offence. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allegations in a complaint for loan non-repayment constitute offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, and whether the revisional court was justified in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, upholding the order of the Sessions Court which set aside the process and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC.
Law Points
- Criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property
- cheating requires deception at inception
- mere non-repayment of loan is civil liability
- revisional court can set aside process if complaint does not disclose offence
- High Court under Articles 226/227 will not interfere if no error in revisional order
