Mere Allegations Of Failure To Keep A Promise Will Not Be Enough To Initiate Criminal Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere allegations of not fulfilling a promise will not be sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings.

The Court disposed of the two bail petitions, involving allegations under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Court noted that not every breach of contract results in criminal prosecution for fraud unless there is clear evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intent at the beginning of the transaction.

“Every breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless the fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely, on the allegations of failure to keep a promise will not be enough to initiate the criminal proceedings”, the Bench of Justice N. S. Shekhawat observed.

Advocate Parshant Singh Chauhan appeared for the Petitioners and Deputy Advocate General Sheenu Sura appeared for the State.

The order pertained to two bail petitions, involving allegations under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B of the IPC. Petitioners argued that he was only an attesting witness to an agreement and that the allegations against him lacked evidence. The State contended that both Petitioners had cooperated with the investigation.

The Court noted that not every breach of contract amounts to criminal prosecution for cheating unless there is evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intent from the beginning of the transaction. Mere failure to fulfil a promise is insufficient to initiate criminal proceedings.

Furthermore, the Court noted that in this case, Vikram Singh initially agreed to sell to the complainant but later sold to Kavita Yadav. Both petitioners were witnesses to this agreement. Instead of pursuing civil action, the complainant filed a FIR. Additionally, both petitioners cooperated with the investigation and their custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary by the police at this stage.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Petitions.

Cause Title: Narender @ Narender Yadav v State of Haryana (2024:PHHC:010979)

Appearance:

Petitioner(s): Advocates Parshant Singh Chauhan and Ankur Lal

Respondent(s): Deputy Advocate General Sheenu Sura, Advocates Vipin Pal Yadav and J. S Sohal.

Click here to read/download Judgment