2019 (2) TMI 2064 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for recovery of money - money was returned or not - Rejection of prayer of the appellants to quash the criminal proceedings instituted by the first respondent against them - whether the averments in the complaint disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under the Penal Code? - HELD THAT - The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to examine whether the averments in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for an offence alleged under the Penal Code. If the averments taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482. A criminal proceeding can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of an offence under the Penal Code. The complaint must be examined as a whole, without evaluating the merits of the allegations. Though the law does not require that the complaint reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence verbatim, the complaint must contain the basic facts necessary for making out an offence under the Penal Code. Entrustment is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code. There is nothing on the face of the complaint to indicate that the appellants dishonestly induced the first respondent to deliver any property to them. Cheating is an essential ingredient to an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code. The ingredient necessary to constitute the offence of cheating is not made out from the face of the complaint and consequently, no offence under Section 420 is made out. In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the criminal proceedings arising from PCR 2116 of 2016 instituted by the first respondent against the appellants are quashed - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plea to quash the criminal proceedings.
2. Whether the averments in the complaint disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under the Penal Code.
3. Whether the criminal complaint constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plea to quash the criminal proceedings:
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the appellants' plea to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the first respondent. The High Court had stayed the criminal proceedings pending the outcome of a civil suit. The Supreme Court noted that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows it to quash proceedings if the complaint does not prima facie constitute an offence or if the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.

2. Whether the averments in the complaint disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under the Penal Code:
The Supreme Court analyzed the complaint to determine if it disclosed the necessary ingredients for offences under Sections 405 (criminal breach of trust), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 415 (cheating), and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Penal Code. The Court found that:
- Section 405: The complaint did not show that the appellants were entrusted with any property. The money was transferred by the son of the appellants to the first respondent, who was to hold it in trust for him.
- Section 415: There was no dishonest inducement by the appellants. The first respondent admitted that the money was transferred by the son of the appellants at his own behest.
- Section 420: Since cheating is an essential ingredient for an offence under Section 420, and the complaint did not disclose any act of cheating by the appellants, no offence under this section was made out.

3. Whether the criminal complaint constitutes an abuse of the process of the court:
The Supreme Court considered whether the criminal complaint was an attempt to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature. The Court noted that the son of the appellants had already filed a civil suit for the recovery of money, which was pending. The complaint was filed by the first respondent six years after the alleged transaction and nearly three years after the civil suit was filed. The Court concluded that the complaint was an abuse of the process of the court, as it did not disclose the necessary ingredients for a criminal offence and was an attempt to harass the appellants.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants. The Court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the pending civil suit, which should be disposed of in accordance with the law.