No cheating and criminal breach of trust - Absence of fraudulent or dishonest intention during agreement for sale
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings. Allegations of Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust Not Substantiated; Eight-Year Delay in Filing Complaint Raises Questions on Complainant's Intent
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the criminal proceedings against Arshad Neyaz Khan, the appellant, in a case involving allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The judgment, delivered by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, emphasized the absence of fraudulent or dishonest intention on Khan's part during the agreement for sale, as well as the undue delay in filing the complaint by the respondent, raising suspicions about the bona fides of the complainant.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Md. Mustafa, alleging that Khan had failed to transfer property as per an agreement dated February 16, 2013, despite receiving an advance payment of Rs.20,00,000. The complaint was lodged after nearly eight years, leading to the registration of FIR No.18 of 2021 at Police Station Hindpiri, Jharkhand, under Sections 406, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case details, found that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not established. The judgment highlighted that mere allegations of non-performance of a contract and failure to refund money do not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating under the IPC. The court reiterated that for an offence of cheating, a fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the time of making a promise, which was absent in this case.
Moreover, the court noted the contradiction in the complaint, as the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust are distinct and cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. Cheating requires criminal intent at the inception, whereas criminal breach of trust involves lawful entrustment followed by dishonest misappropriation.
The Supreme Court also underscored the misuse of criminal proceedings for personal vendetta, stating that the delay of eight years in filing the complaint further casts doubt on the complainant's intentions. The judgment warned against the use of criminal law as a tool for vindictive proceedings and stressed the importance of ensuring that the criminal justice system is not exploited for vested interests.
This ruling aligns with established legal precedents, including the judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, and echoes concerns raised in Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, regarding the misuse of criminal justice machinery for oblique motives.
The court's decision to quash the criminal proceedings serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding individuals from unwarranted harassment and ensuring justice is not compromised by ulterior motives.
Bottom Line:
Allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust not made out - Absence of fraudulent or dishonest intention during agreement for sale - Delay of eight years in filing complaint raises suspicion on bona fides of complainant - Criminal law should not be used for vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 406, 420, 120B IPC, Section 482 CrPC
Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2783377
