Bunty Sahu vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the allegations in FIR No. 328 of 2018 do not constitute an offense under Section 420 of the IPC. The Court reasoned that to establish cheating, it is essential to demonstrate a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time the promise was made. A mere subsequent failure to fulfill a promise, as in this case where the petitioner received an advance for supply but did not deliver the goods, does not automatically imply a culpable intention from the beginning. The Court found that the transaction between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 was a case of breach of promise, clearly falling within the realm of a civil dispute rather than a criminal offense. Therefore, prosecuting the petitioner under Section 420 IPC was deemed inappropriate. The petition was allowed, and the FIR was quashed. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Bunty Sahu, filed a writ petition seeking to quash FIR No. 328 of 2018. The FIR was lodged by respondent No. 4, Gaurav Agrawal, alleging that the petitioner received an advance of Rs. 90,000/- for the supply of lubricants and motor parts but failed to make the supply. The petitioner contended that this was a civil dispute and not a criminal offense, highlighting his GST registration and business transactions. The State argued that the FIR was based on an inquiry, the petitioner was a habitual offender with 17 previous prosecution cases, and a prima facie case was made out. Respondent No. 4 adopted the State's arguments. The petitioner countered that he had been acquitted in all previous cases and that the current matter was a civil dispute wrongly converted into a criminal case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in FIR No. 328 of 2018, concerning the non-supply of goods after receiving an advance payment, constitute an offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), or if it is a dispute of a civil nature? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the failure to supply goods after receiving an advance payment does not, in itself, constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC. He contended that the intention to deceive must be present at the time of making the promise, and mere failure to fulfill a promise subsequently does not imply fraudulent intent from the outset. He relied on the principle laid down in Smt. Renuka Gupta and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, which cited a Supreme Court judgment stating that a person cannot be held guilty of cheating solely based on a subsequent failure to keep a promise. The petitioner asserted that the matter was purely civil and lodging an FIR would be an abuse of process. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner based on the FIR and the inquiry conducted. They also presented the petitioner's history of 17 previous prosecution cases as evidence of his alleged habitual offending. Respondent No. 4 adopted the State's arguments.