Summary
A supplier’s dispute with a company over revised rates and an unpaid invoice did not, on the complaint and initial depositions, disclose criminal breach of trust. The complaint also lacked particulars supporting intentional insult or criminal intimidation, so the summons and complaint against the company employee were quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Issues
- Whether the complaint and pre-summoning material disclosed criminal breach of trust in a commercial dispute over the rate for supplied work.
- Whether the allegations disclosed intentional insult or criminal intimidation, and whether the High Court should have quashed the summons under Section 482 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 405 and 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860Criminal breach of trust requires entrustment or dominion over property and dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal in breach of law or contract. The rate dispute and non-payment allegations showed no such entrustment or dishonest dealing by the appellant. (¶¶ 8, 9, 14, 15, 16)
- Sections 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860The complaint and initial depositions contained only a general allegation of abuse and threat, without particulars showing the required intentional insult or criminal intimidation. (¶¶ 11, 17, 18)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court’s inherent power is available to prevent abuse of criminal process. Because the complaint and supporting initial material disclosed no offence, the High Court should have quashed the proceedings rather than leave the appellant to seek discharge. (¶¶ 5, 18, 19, 21)
Held
- A disputed or unpaid commercial demand does not by itself establish criminal breach of trust. The complaint must disclose entrustment or dominion over property and dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal; those ingredients were absent here. (¶¶ 8, 9, 14, 15, 16)
- A complaint that merely repeats statutory language, without particulars of the alleged insult or threat, did not disclose offences under Sections 504 and 506 on this record. (¶¶ 11, 17, 18)
- Although a Magistrate need only find sufficient ground to proceed at the summons stage and need not give detailed reasons, the material here disclosed no offence. The High Court should have exercised Section 482 jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process; the absence of the employer company as an accused was not, by itself, a ground for quashing. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
Result
The appeal was allowed. The High Court’s judgment, the criminal complaint and the summons order dated 18 August 2021, together with consequential proceedings, were set aside.