Bombay High Court Quashes Process Against Foreign Accused in Cheating Case Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction and Absence of Prima Facie Case. The court held that the alleged deception occurred outside India and the complainant was aware of the facts, thus no offence under Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC was made out.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 118
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment pertains to three criminal applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) by the applicants, who are foreign nationals and companies, seeking quashing of the order of issuance of process dated 8th February 2012 in Criminal Case No.36/SW/2009 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The background involves a commercial dispute between the parties. The complainant, Sunil Laxman Gupta, alleged that the applicants, who were associated with Zeeco Inc., a US-based company, and its subsidiaries, cheated him by not honoring a business arrangement regarding the supply of burners and related equipment. The complainant claimed that he was induced to invest time and resources based on false promises. The applicants contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process. They argued that the alleged deception, if any, occurred outside India, and thus the court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court analyzed the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC. It noted that for an offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the essential elements are deception and inducement, which must occur within the territorial limits of the court. The court found that the complainant was aware of the facts and voluntarily entered into the business arrangement, and there was no evidence of any deception or inducement within the jurisdiction of the court. Regarding criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, the court held that there was no entrustment of property as required. The court also observed that the allegations of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC were not substantiated. Consequently, the court allowed the applications and quashed the criminal proceedings against all the applicants, holding that the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 179 CrPC - Offence of Cheating - The court held that for an offence of cheating, the crucial ingredient is deception and inducement, which must occur within the territorial limits of the court. Mere receipt of goods or payment within jurisdiction is insufficient to confer jurisdiction if the alleged deception occurred outside. (Paras 10-15)

B) Indian Penal Code - Criminal Breach of Trust - Section 406 IPC - Ingredients - The court held that to constitute criminal breach of trust, there must be entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation or conversion. In the absence of any entrustment, the offence is not made out. (Paras 16-20)

C) Indian Penal Code - Cheating - Section 420 IPC - Ingredients - The court held that cheating requires deception of a person, inducing him to deliver property. If the complainant was aware of the facts and voluntarily entered into a transaction, no deception can be alleged. (Paras 21-25)

D) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - The court held that where the allegations do not disclose any offence or the proceedings are manifestly frivolous, the High Court may quash the complaint to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 26-30)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the applicants, who are foreign nationals and companies, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with 34 IPC, can be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and absence of prima facie case.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the applications and quashed the order of issuance of process dated 8th February 2012 in Criminal Case No.36/SW/2009 against all the applicants.

Law Points

  • Territorial jurisdiction under Section 179 CrPC
  • Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC
  • Ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC
  • Ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC
  • Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC
  • Vicarious liability of directors and companies
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (08) 122

Criminal Application No.547 of 2013, Criminal Application No.781 of 2013, Criminal Application No.1133 of 2012

2016-08-05

Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, J.

Mr. Niteen Pradhan with Mr. Rajat Agarwal with Mr. Omkar Kelkar i/b. Mr. Anish Ghoshal for the Applicants, Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for Respondent No.1-State, Mr. Manoj Mohite with Mr. Anand Mishra i/b. Mr. A.M. Saraogi for Respondent No.2

Darton Zink, M/s. Zeeco Inc., Nigel Palfreeman, M/s. Zeeco Europe Limited, Sanjeev Chipalkatti, M/s. Zeeco India Pvt. Ltd.

The State of Maharashtra, Sunil Laxman Gupta

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal applications under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of order of issuance of process in a criminal case for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with 34 IPC.

Remedy Sought

The applicants sought quashing of the order of issuance of process dated 8th February 2012 in Criminal Case No.36/SW/2009.

Filing Reason

The applicants contended that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process as the dispute was civil in nature and the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

Previous Decisions

The Magistrate had issued process against the applicants on 8th February 2012.

Issues

Whether the criminal proceedings against the applicants can be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction? Whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie constitute offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC?

Submissions/Arguments

The applicants argued that the alleged deception occurred outside India and the court lacked territorial jurisdiction. They also contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature and no criminal offence was made out. The respondent-complainant argued that part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court as the goods were to be supplied in India and payments were made in India.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that for an offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients of deception and inducement must occur within the territorial limits of the court. In the absence of any such deception within jurisdiction, the court cannot take cognizance. Further, the allegations did not disclose any entrustment for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. The proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

By these applications filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Applicants, have sought to quash the order of issuance of process dated 8th February, 2012 in Criminal Case No.36/SW/2009 for offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120 B r/w. 34 of the IPC.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a criminal case (Criminal Case No.36/SW/2009) before the Magistrate. The Magistrate issued process against the applicants on 8th February 2012. The applicants then filed three criminal applications under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking quashing of the process. The High Court reserved judgment on 2nd August 2016 and pronounced it on 5th August 2016, allowing the applications and quashing the proceedings.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482, 179
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 406, 420, 120B, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Considers Writ Petition Against Order Rejecting Decree on Admission in Partition Suit Among Siblings. Trial Court's Rejection of Order XII Rule 6 CPC Application Based on Conditional Admission Under Scrutiny.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Father's Petition in Child Custody Dispute Under Section 97 CrPC — Magistrate's Order Restoring Child to Mother Set Aside for Lack of Jurisdiction. Father Cannot Be Said to Wrongfully Confine His Own Minor Child; Custody Di...