Case Note & Summary
The judgment relates to two criminal writ petitions filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, being Criminal Writ Petition No.170 of 2017 and Criminal Writ Petition No.101 of 2017. Both petitions sought quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No.425 of 2016 registered with the MIDC CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, for offences under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The dispute arose from a hotel booking transaction for a wedding, where the complainant (Respondent No.2) had engaged the services of an agent (Petitioner in WP No.101/2017) and made payments totalling Rs.4,25,000/- to the hotel (associated with the Petitioner in WP No.170/2017). The booking dates were altered from 16th April 2016 to 17th-19th April 2016. The complainant alleged that the booking was cancelled and the amount was not refunded, leading to the FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Petitioners contended that the FIR, even taken at face value, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. They argued that the matter was purely civil in nature, arising from a contractual dispute, and that there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of the contract. They submitted that for an offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the fraudulent intention must exist at the time of inducement, and a mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating. For criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, there must be dominion over property and dishonest misappropriation, which were absent. The petitioners also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Aurangabad police station and alleged that the FIR was filed with an ulterior motive to pressurize them. They relied on several Supreme Court decisions to support their contentions. The court heard arguments of all parties, and the judgment was reserved on 21st March 2017 and pronounced on 31st March 2017 by a Division Bench comprising Justices S.S. Shinde and K.K. Sonawane. The available text of the judgment, however, does not contain the final decision, reasoning, or operative order of the court.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR in Crime No.425 of 2016 for offences under Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC or inherent powers of High Court; Whether the dispute is of civil nature without criminal ingredients; Whether the Aurangabad police station had jurisdiction to investigate
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (03) 71
Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 170 of 2017 and 101 of 2017
S.S. Shinde, K.K. Sonawane
Amol K. Gawali, R.S. Kulkarni, Sanket S. Kulkarni, P.G. Borade, R.P. Mote
Sanjay Shrivastava, Ashok Lal
The State of Maharashtra, Raju Lalchand Mankani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR
Remedy Sought
Quashing of First Information Report No.425 of 2016 registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC
Filing Reason
Alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust in a hotel booking contract; complainant claimed non-refund of amounts after cancellation of booking
Issues
Whether the FIR discloses the essential ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust?
Whether the dispute is purely civil in nature?
Whether the police station at Aurangabad had territorial jurisdiction to investigate?
Whether the petition is an abuse of process of court?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the FIR, even taken at face value, does not attract offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC as the dispute is contractual and civil in nature
They contended that there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, a necessary ingredient of cheating
The agent (Petitioner in WP No.101/2017) acted on behalf of the complainant and transferred all amounts to the hotel, thus lacking dominion over property required for criminal breach of trust
The Aurangabad police station had no jurisdiction as no cause of action arose there
The FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to pressurize the petitioners and recover a non-refundable amount
There was an undue delay in filing the FIR
Judgment Excerpts
even if the allegations in the First Information Report (for short "FIR") are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, an ingredients of alleged offences have not been attracted
the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and the FIR is filed with ulterior motive to get back the non refundable amount by pressurizing the Petitioner by filing criminal complaint
the informant, in order to prove offence of cheating, is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation
the Petitioner Ashok Lal was a mere agent acting on behalf of Respondent No.2 and hence he cannot be held liable for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the I.P. Code
the essential ingredients for the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the I.P. Code is the mens rea
Procedural History
FIR No.425 of 2016 registered on 5th November 2016 at MIDC CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad. Petitioners filed criminal writ petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing. Heard together and reserved for judgment on 21st March 2017, pronounced on 31st March 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 420, 406, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
