Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, including the proprietor and employees of a vehicle dealership, challenged the revisional court's order directing issuance of process against them under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The respondent/complainant had paid an advance for a tractor but the vehicle was not delivered, leading to a criminal complaint. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint finding no prima facie case of cheating, as the dispute appeared civil. The Revisional Court reversed this, holding that a prima facie case existed. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the ingredients of cheating. It held that the Revisional Court could not interfere unless the Trial Court's order was perverse, which it was not. The complaint lacked allegations of dishonest intention at the time of inducement, a necessary element for cheating. The High Court quashed the revisional order and restored the Trial Court's dismissal, emphasizing that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Revisional Court cannot interfere with a well-reasoned order of the Trial Court unless it is perverse, illegal, or improper - The Trial Court had correctly held that no prima facie case for cheating was made out - The Revisional Court erred in substituting its own view without finding any illegality or perversity (Paras 7-10).
B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 - Cheating - Essential Ingredients - For an offence of cheating, there must be a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the inducement - Mere failure to deliver goods or breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless there is evidence of deception from the inception - The complaint lacked allegations of dishonest intention at the time of payment (Paras 5-6).
C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 204 - Issue of Process - Prima Facie Case - Process can be issued only if there is sufficient ground for proceeding - The Trial Court correctly found that the complaint did not disclose any criminal offence and the dispute was purely civil in nature - The Revisional Court's order to issue process was unsustainable (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revisional Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court's order refusing to issue process and directing issuance of process under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the revisional court's order dated 10.01.2006, and restored the trial court's order dated 05.07.2005 dismissing the complaint.
Law Points
- Cheating requires dishonest intention at the time of inducement
- mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating
- revisional court cannot substitute its view without finding perversity in trial court's order
- process under Section 420 IPC cannot be issued without prima facie evidence of deception.
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (06) 28
Criminal Writ Petition No. 173 of 2006
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. R. A. Tambe for Petitioners; Mr. S. G. Karlekar, APP for Respondent No.1/State; Mr. V. G. Mete for Respondent No.2
Mansing S/o Balasaheb Pawar, Jayesh S/o Dinkarrao Kulkarni, Avinash S/o Prabhakarrao Kulkarni, Vasantrao S/o Tulsiram Sawant
The State of Maharashtra, Banderao S/o Namaji Sonovane
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging revisional court's order directing issuance of process under Section 420 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the revisional court's order dated 10.01.2006 and restoration of the trial court's order dismissing the complaint.
Filing Reason
The respondent/complainant alleged that after paying an advance for a tractor, the petitioners failed to deliver the vehicle, constituting cheating.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed the complaint on 05.07.2005 refusing to issue process; Revisional Court allowed revision on 10.01.2006 and directed issuance of process.
Issues
Whether the Revisional Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court's order refusing to issue process under Section 420 IPC?
Whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie case of cheating against the petitioners?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature and no dishonest intention existed at the time of payment.
Respondent contended that non-delivery after payment amounted to cheating and the revisional court correctly found a prima facie case.
Ratio Decidendi
For an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the inducement. Mere breach of contract or failure to deliver goods does not constitute cheating unless deception is present from the inception. The Revisional Court cannot interfere with a well-reasoned order of the Trial Court unless it is perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 10.01.2006 delivered by the Revisional Court by which Criminal Revision Application No. 160 of 2005 filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed and process was issued against the petitioners under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
For an offence of cheating, there must be a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the inducement.
Procedural History
Complaint filed by respondent No.2 before Trial Court; Trial Court dismissed complaint on 05.07.2005 refusing to issue process; Respondent No.2 filed Criminal Revision Application No. 160 of 2005 before the Sessions Court; Revisional Court allowed revision on 10.01.2006 directing issuance of process; Petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 173 of 2006 before the High Court; High Court admitted petition on 22.03.2006 and granted interim stay; Final judgment on 09.06.2016 allowing the writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 420, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 204
