Summary
A consultant neurosurgeon whose engagement with a Mysore hospital was terminated filed a private complaint against the hospital's general manager. He alleged wrong billing that reduced his professional fees, and harassment. The Magistrate took cognizance, but the Sessions Court set that aside in revision. The Karnataka High Court found no defamation but held that cheating and criminal breach of trust were prima facie disclosed. Reading the complaint as it stood, the Court found no allegation of deception, dishonest inducement or delivery of property, and no entrustment of property. The grievance was at most a breach of the Consultancy Agreement, a civil dispute. The appeal was allowed and the Sessions Court's revisional order restored.
Issues
- Whether a complaint alleging improper billing of a consultant's fees and wrongful termination disclosed the offences of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 IPC.
- Whether it disclosed criminal breach of trust under Section 405 IPC without any allegation of entrustment.
Provisions considered
- Sections 415 and 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860Cheating needs deception and fraudulent or dishonest inducement present from the start of the transaction. The complaint alleged neither deception nor inducement to part with property, so cheating was not made out. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Section 405, Indian Penal Code, 1860Criminal breach of trust needs entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion. No entrustment was alleged, and an alleged breach of contractual terms does not by itself amount to the offence. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
Held
- Whether the offences are disclosed is decided by reading the complaint as it stands. Cheating needs deception and a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of inducement. A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless that intention is shown at the inception of the transaction. (¶¶ 10, 14, 16, 17)
- The complaint arose from the termination of the complainant's services and alleged improper billing of surgical fees. It contained no allegation of deception, dishonest intention, or inducement to deliver or retain property or to act to his detriment. At most it alleged a breach of the Consultancy Agreement, which is a civil dispute. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property or dominion over it, followed by dishonest misappropriation or conversion. No entrustment was even prima facie shown, so issuing allegedly irregular bills could not amount to the offence. The High Court erred in restoring cognizance. (¶¶ 20, 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's judgment is set aside and the Additional Sessions Judge's revisional order setting aside cognizance is restored.