Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal writ petitions filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them by the respondent-complainant, a teacher. The complainant alleged that the petitioners, who were office bearers of educational societies, failed to pay her salary and other benefits, and also forged documents. The Magistrate issued process for offences under Sections 406, 409, 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 471, 477A, 166, 120B read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners challenged the order before the Sessions Court, which dismissed their revision petitions. Aggrieved, they approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court examined the allegations and found that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, relating to non-payment of salary and other service benefits. The court held that the ingredients of cheating were not made out as there was no deception at the inception of the transaction. Similarly, the allegations of criminal breach of trust and forgery were not supported by any prima facie evidence. The court emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool for recovery of money or to settle civil disputes. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against all the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Abuse of Process of Law - Sections 482 Cr.P.C. - Dispute arising out of non-payment of salary and other benefits by an educational society to a teacher - Held that the allegations do not disclose any criminal offence and the matter is purely civil in nature, hence criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of law (Paras 1-27).
B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating - Section 420 IPC - Ingredients of Cheating - Requirement of Deception at Inception - Held that for an offence under Section 420 IPC, the deception must be from the very beginning and not a mere breach of contract; in the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioners had dishonest intention at the time of initial transaction (Paras 15-18).
C) Indian Penal Code - Criminal Breach of Trust - Sections 406, 409 IPC - Entrustment and Dishonest Misappropriation - Held that the complainant failed to establish entrustment of property or dishonest misappropriation; the dispute pertains to non-payment of salary which is a civil liability (Paras 19-21).
D) Indian Penal Code - Forgery - Sections 465, 467, 471, 477A IPC - False Document - Held that the allegations of forgery are vague and do not specify which documents were forged or how; mere suspicion is not enough to sustain charges of forgery (Paras 22-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for offences under Sections 406, 409, 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 471, 477A, 166, 120B read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code should be quashed on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature and no prima facie case is made out.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both criminal writ petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings against all the petitioners. The order issuing process by the Magistrate and the judgments of the Sessions Court dismissing the revisions were set aside.
Law Points
- Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool for recovery of money
- breach of contract does not constitute criminal offence
- ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC must be present at inception
- criminal breach of trust requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation
- forgery requires false document with intent to cause damage
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (09) 216
Criminal Writ Petition No.497 of 2013 and Criminal Writ Petition No.496 of 2013
Mr.A.A.Naik for petitioners, Mr.J.B.Kasat for respondent no.1, Mr.S.D.Shirpurkar, APP for State
Mohammad Illiyas Mahammad Shafi, Sau.Kausarjahan w/o Mohd.Illiyas, Mudassar Khan Musa Khan (in CWP 497/2013); Vitthal s/o Pandurang Patil, Mahadev Chendu Jumale (in CWP 496/2013)
Shaheen Parveen Ziaulmallan Khan, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant for offences under IPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the order issuing process and the entire criminal proceedings against them.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the order of the Magistrate issuing process for various IPC offences on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature and no criminal offence was made out.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) Darwha issued process on 26th March, 2012 in R.C.C.No.145 of 2012. The Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha dismissed Criminal Revision No.15 of 2012 and Criminal Revision No.30 of 2012 on 13th July, 2012 and 25th October, 2012 respectively.
Issues
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners for offences under Sections 406, 409, 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 471, 477A, 166, 120B read with Section 109 IPC should be quashed as the dispute is civil in nature?
Whether the allegations in the complaint make out a prima facie case for the said offences?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the dispute is purely civil in nature relating to non-payment of salary and other benefits, and no criminal offence is made out. They submitted that the complainant was a teacher and the allegations do not disclose any deception or dishonest intention at the inception.
Respondent argued that the petitioners had dishonest intention from the beginning and committed cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery by not paying salary and fabricating documents.
Ratio Decidendi
Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool for recovery of money or to enforce civil liabilities. For an offence under Section 420 IPC, the deception must be from the very beginning of the transaction. In the absence of any allegation of dishonest intention at the inception, mere non-payment of salary does not constitute cheating. Similarly, criminal breach of trust requires entrustment and dishonest misappropriation, which are not made out. Allegations of forgery must be specific and supported by evidence; vague allegations are insufficient. Hence, the proceedings are an abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Judgment Excerpts
The dispute between the parties is essentially of civil nature and the criminal machinery has been set in motion by the complainant only with a view to recover the amount.
For an offence under Section 420 IPC, the deception must be from the very beginning and not a mere breach of contract.
The allegations of forgery are vague and do not specify which documents were forged or how.
Procedural History
The complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) Darwha, who ordered issuance of process on 26th March, 2012 in R.C.C.No.145 of 2012. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.15 of 2012 and Criminal Revision No.30 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, which were dismissed on 13th July, 2012 and 25th October, 2012 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present criminal writ petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 406, 409, 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 471, 477A, 166, 120B, 109
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
