Vinuj Noor Mohammed vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court held that the allegations in the complaint, while serious, do not conclusively establish the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC at the stage of considering anticipatory bail. The Court reasoned that the complainant's grievance primarily pertains to a potential breach of contract, involving the supply of used goods and shortages, which could be addressed through civil remedies like a suit for damages or recovery of balance money. The Court emphasized that it is a matter of proof whether the gloves supplied were actually used, and this cannot be definitively concluded solely based on the complaint's assertions. Therefore, the petitioner had made out a ground for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions due to the petitioner being from Kerala and to ensure the completion of the investigation. The operative directions included releasing the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a bond and sureties, marking attendance before the police periodically, cooperating with the investigation, not threatening witnesses or destroying evidence, and surrendering his passport if any.

Facts

The petitioner, Vinuj Noor Mohammed, is accused no.1 in FIR No.59/2020 registered by the Cubbon Park Police Station for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed by Dr. Rohit C.P., who alleged that he and a partner ordered 10 lakh pieces of Nitrile gloves from the petitioner and another accused, making a payment of Rs.36,40,000/- including GST. Out of the ordered quantity, only 2.9 lakh pieces were delivered. The complainant further alleged that approximately 68,000 gloves were used, and each box contained a shortage of 40-50 pieces. The petitioner and the co-accused failed to supply the remaining gloves within the stipulated time. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint, specifically concerning the supply of used gloves and shortages, constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, warranting the denial of anticipatory bail? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the allegations, even if true, primarily point to a civil dispute concerning breach of contract and recovery of money or damages. The petitioner argued that it is a matter of proof whether the gloves supplied were indeed used and that the mere assertion of used gloves in the complaint is insufficient to establish the offence of cheating at this stage. Revenue's arguments: The respondent-State, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, did not explicitly present arguments against the grant of anticipatory bail in the provided text. The judgment notes that the counsel for the petitioner and the High Court Government Pleader were heard.