- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sunil Kumar v. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The informant lodged FIR No. 285 of 1998 at P.S. Rajouri Garden alleging that the respondents, acting in conspiracy, misused blank cheques he had signed. The cheques were allegedly intended only for payment against future delivery of vehicles; instead, the respondents presented them for prior liabilities. Although the cheques were not honoured because the informant issued stop-payment directions, he incurred bank commission charges of ₹8,982. The respondents sought quashing of the FIR before the Delhi High Court, contending that the complaint disclosed no offence under Sections 406, 420 or 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was filed with an ulterior motive. The High Court agreed, noting that the informant had already invoked a civil remedy through arbitration, and quashed the FIR. The informant appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the allegations in FIR No. 285/1998 disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC).
- Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law, thereby justifying quashing of the FIR under the High Court’s inherent powers.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The FIR, on its face, makes out cognizable offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC; therefore, it could not be quashed at the threshold.
- Reliance on Supreme Court precedents—State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi)—to assert that when allegations disclose an offence, criminal investigation must proceed.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Even accepting the FIR allegations as true, the ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust are absent; the dispute is purely civil.
- The informant initiated criminal proceedings with an ulterior motive: to harass the respondents and pre-empt a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint against him.
- Cited Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha to emphasise that criminal process must not become an instrument of oppression or needless harassment.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 | Guidelines for quashing FIRs; when allegations prima facie disclose an offence, FIR should not be quashed. | Appellant relied on it to oppose quashing; the Court distinguished the present facts, finding no prima facie offence. |
| Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 3 SCC 259 | Threshold for court intervention in criminal complaints; liberal reading of complaint to ascertain offence. | Invoked by appellant; Court held that even a liberal reading did not reveal ingredients of Sections 406/420 IPC. |
| Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499 | Courts should prevent criminal process from being used as an instrument of harassment or oppression. | Supported respondents’ plea that allowing prosecution would abuse the process; Court adopted this reasoning. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the FIR allegations in light of the statutory elements of cheating under Section 415 IPC and criminal breach of trust under Section 405 IPC. It found that:
- The FIR did not allege any dishonest intention at the time the cheques were delivered, a requisite for both offences.
- No entrustment or misappropriation, as contemplated under Section 405 IPC, was clearly pleaded.
- The surrounding circumstances—including the informant’s parallel resort to arbitration and the imminent threat of Section 138 N.I. Act proceedings against him—indicated that the criminal complaint was strategically filed to forestall civil/criminal liability.
- Permitting prosecution on such facts would amount to abuse of the judicial process, squarely fitting the categories warranting quashing as recognised in Bhajan Lal.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the High Court properly exercised its discretion in quashing the FIR.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed – FIR remains quashed.
Direct effect: the criminal proceedings against the respondents under FIR No. 285/1998 will not continue. The judgment reinforces the judiciary’s duty to prevent abuse of criminal process when essential ingredients of alleged offences are absent. No new legal doctrine was created; the Court applied established principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings.
G.B Pattanaik, J.— Leave granted.
2. The decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, quashing FIR No. 285 of 1998 at PS Rajouri Garden for offence under Sections 420/406/468 IPC is under challenge in this appeal by the informant. The appellant informant filed the FIR alleging therein that the respondents by an act of conspiracy committed criminal breach of trust by presenting blank cheques signed by the appellant for withdrawing money for a purpose for which it had not been given and by so doing, they have caused a loss of Rs 8982 inasmuch as this was the commission which the appellant had to bear. The gravamen of the appellant's case in the FIR is that certain cheques had been given to the respondents, more particularly, the Commercial Manager with the specific understanding that these cheques can be presented against delivery of future vehicles and not for any past liability or dues, but the respondents presented the same which of course could not be encashed in view of the directions given by the appellant drawer. However the appellant had to sustain the loss of Rs 8982 as commission charges. The respondents filed application in the Delhi High Court for quashing of the FIR, inter alia, on the ground that the averments in the FIR do not make out the offence of either Section 406 or Section 420 as the necessary ingredients under Sections 405 and 415 IPC have not been indicated. The respondents also took the ground that the criminal proceedings pursuant to the FIR have been initiated with an ulterior motive and thereby there has been a gross abuse of the process of law and as such the FIR should be quashed. The High Court on consideration of the case of the parties and on the materials was of the opinion that the informant himself has already resorted to civil remedy for adjudication by an arbitrator and thereafter having lodged the complaint must be held to have abused the process of law and, therefore, the FIR should be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. Mr P.C Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended before us that the assertions made in the FIR do constitute a cognizable offence and as such the same could not have been quashed in the light of the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and the judgment of this Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259, JT (1999) 2 SC 112.
4. Mr H.N Salve and Mr Arun Jaitley, learned Senior Counsel appearing for different accused persons on the other hand contended that the assertions made in the FIR even taken on face value do not satisfy the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been made and on the other hand it manifestly indicates that the complainant has instituted the criminal proceedings with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and to pre-empt the filing of the criminal complaint against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, therefore, the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would result in manifest injustice and as such quashed the FIR, and this Court, therefore, would not be justified in interfering with the same in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel, issuance of process should not be allowed to be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. Responsibilities and duties on the magistracy lie in finding out whether the alleged accused would be legally responsible for the offence charged for. The court at that stage could be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the person needlessly. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499.
5. Bearing in mind the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to earlier and the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on examining the allegations made in the FIR, we are persuaded to accept the submission of Mr H.N Salve and Mr Arun Jaitley, appearing for the respondents that the necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust have not been made out and on the other hand the attendant circumstances indicate that the FIR was lodged to pre-empt the filing of the criminal complaint against the informant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court, therefore, was well within its power in quashing the FIR as otherwise it would tantamount to an abuse of the process of court. We, therefore, see no justification for our interference with the impugned decision of the High Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution.
6. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Alert