A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court examined the quashing of an FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 482, CrPC, concerning allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant alleged non-payment of rent by the respondents, who had hired a truck under an agreement. The Court emphasized the principle that FIRs disclosing prima facie cognizable offenses should not be quashed at the threshold without consideration of the investigation materials. The Court observed that criminal mens rea could be inferred from actions and surrounding circumstances, remitting the case to the High Court for a fresh decision.

Keywords:

FIR, Quashing petition, Criminal breach of trust, Cheating, Mens rea, Cognizance.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand & Others

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 4190 of 2024.

iii) Judgement Date:
October 14, 2024.

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India.

v) Quorum:
Hon’ble Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

vi) Author:
Justice Manoj Misra.

vii) Citation:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 893; 2024 INSC 772.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Sections 482, 156(3), 41A, 204, 173(2).
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 406, 420.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None explicitly mentioned.

x) Case Related to Law Subjects:
Criminal law, Procedural law, Quashing of FIRs.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arises from a rental agreement where the respondents hired a truck from the appellant but failed to make payments after the first month. Despite assurances and several arrears amounting to Rs. 12,49,780, the truck was retained without payment. The appellant initiated legal proceedings under Section 156(3), CrPC, leading to the registration of an FIR. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) took cognizance and issued non-bailable warrants. The respondents then sought to quash the FIR, arguing the absence of dishonest intention and a civil nature of the dispute. The High Court, siding with the respondents, quashed the FIR and proceedings, leading to the present appeal.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellant and respondents entered into a rental agreement on July 10, 2014, for a truck with a monthly rent of Rs. 33,000, excluding other expenses.
2. Possession was handed over, and only one month’s rent was paid, deducting TDS.
3. Despite repeated demands, arrears of Rs. 12,49,780 accrued without further payments or return of the truck.
4. The appellant filed an application under Section 156(3), CrPC, and the CJM directed the police to register a case for investigation.
5. The respondents, during investigation, failed to respond to notices under Section 41A, CrPC, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants.
6. The High Court quashed the FIR and cognizance, reasoning the absence of entrustment and dishonest intention, deeming the matter civil in nature.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR and cognizance without evaluating investigation materials?
2. Whether the FIR allegations disclosed offenses under Sections 406 and 420, IPC?
3. Can disputes involving alleged non-payment of rent constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating?

F) PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

1. The FIR disclosed that rent was unpaid despite false assurances, establishing a prima facie case for investigation.
2. The High Court failed to consider the charge sheet and materials collected during investigation, which suggested a cognizable offense.
3. Non-payment and the truck’s untraceable whereabouts indicated possible misappropriation or dishonest disposal.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The FIR lacked specifics on entrustment or misappropriation, essential for criminal breach of trust.
2. The matter was contractual, requiring civil remedies, and did not involve criminal liability.
3. Payment of one month’s rent negated any initial dishonest intent, refuting charges under Section 420, IPC.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Section 482, CrPC: Power to quash FIRs.
• Sections 406 & 420, IPC: Criminal breach of trust and cheating require dishonest intent.
• Section 173(2), CrPC: Mandates police submission of charge sheets post-investigation.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. FIR allegations and investigation materials must be evaluated collectively to determine prima facie offenses.
2. Mens rea is a factual element inferred from actions, surroundings, and conduct of the accused.
3. FIRs disclosing cognizable offenses should not be quashed at the threshold unless completely lacking substance.

b. Obiter Dicta

FIRs need not detail every imputation; subsequent investigations fill gaps. Courts must distinguish between civil disputes and criminal liability.

c. Guidelines

1. High Courts must consider charge sheet materials before quashing FIRs under Section 482, CrPC.
2. FIR quashing cannot thwart legitimate investigations, especially when cognizable offenses are apparent.
3. Allegations of non-payment and breach of trust warrant police inquiry into potential criminal liability.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court highlighted that FIR quashing at the preliminary stage requires an exhaustive assessment of all relevant materials. It remanded the matter to the High Court, emphasizing the necessity to deliberate on the charge sheet and investigation findings before ruling on quashing petitions. This judgment reaffirms the balance between protecting individuals from frivolous allegations and allowing legitimate investigations to proceed.

References

1. Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand & Others, [2024] 10 S.C.R. 893.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.