Deception Has To Be Played At Inception; If Developed Later, It Will Not Amount To Cheating U/S 420 IPC: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court, while quashing criminal proceedings, has observed that to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), deception has to be played at the very inception and if the intention to cheat develops later on, the same will not amount to cheating.
A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings and order of cognizance passed by the Judicial Magistrate in a case under Section 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary observed “The only allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant along with witnesses went to meet her at Mumbai or met her at Mumbai. This in itself; in the considered opinion of this Court is not sufficient of her active role coupled with criminal intent more so when the company itself has not been made an accused though admittedly, the transaction is allegedly with the company. Otherwise also, as it being a settled principle of law, as has been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, deception has to be played at the very inception and if the intention to cheat develops later on, the same will not amount to cheating.”
Advocate A K Das appeared for the Petitioner whereas Addl. PP Rajesh Kumar appeared for the Opposite Parties.
The Petitioner is the director of the Company Ritebanc Agritech Solution Pvt. Ltd.. The Petitioner-Director, along with the Managing Partner of the Company, had entered into an agreement with the Complainant for the supply of rice of Rs. Rs.1,67,50,573/- by truck. A sum of Rs.34,60,000/- in total was transferred to the bank account of the complainant on different dates. It was alleged that the Petitioner refused to transfer the remaining amount, hence, a complaint was filed against her.
The Court reiterated that it is a settled principle of law that to make an individual an accused along with the company, there should either be a doctrine of vicarious liability in the statutory regime or sufficient evidence of the active role played coupled with the criminal intent is to be shown; against the accused concerned.
The Court further said that to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the accused persons but it must also be shown that the accused persons dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same.
“Hence, it is neither the offence punishable under section 420 nor the offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.3834 of 2018 including the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi be quashed and set aside.”, the Court concluded.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the complaint and set aside the order of cognizance.
Cause Title: Ruchika Kakar v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates A K Das and Ashish Verma.
Opposite Parties: Addl. PP Rajesh Kumar and Advocate Pratyush Kr. Jha