Akash Bhilwar vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the allegations against the applicant pertained essentially to a contractual/commercial dispute. The complainant's own version indicated that monetary transactions were carried out in the regular course of business, with receipts issued and GST invoices generated. The Court found that, even if accepted in entirety, these facts at best disclosed a case of breach of contract for which efficacious civil remedies are available. The essential ingredients of cheating and criminal misappropriation, as contemplated under the IPC/BNS, were prima facie not satisfied. The Court reiterated the settled position of law that mere failure to honour a commercial promise or supply goods within the stipulated time cannot, in itself, constitute a criminal offence, unless fraudulent intent from inception is demonstrated. Therefore, the Court found that the material on record did not disclose the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and granted anticipatory bail. The operative direction was to release the applicant on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, subject to compliance with specified conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Akash Bhilwar, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a criminal case registered for offences under Sections 316(5), 316(2), and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023. The complainant alleged that he entered into an agreement with the petitioner for the supply of approximately 11,000 bags of cement for Rs. 30,00,000. The complainant paid Rs. 5,00,000 in cash as advance and transferred the remaining Rs. 25,00,000 via RTGS. Despite full payment, the petitioner failed to deliver the cement and stopped responding. The complainant discovered invoices on the GST portal for goods worth around Rs. 15,00,000, which were allegedly not delivered. The petitioner argued that the transaction was purely commercial and civil in nature, and the criminal case was an abuse of process to pressure him for settlement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR), taken at face value, disclose the commission of a criminal offence, specifically cheating and criminal misappropriation, or merely a civil/commercial dispute arising from a breach of contract, under Sections 316(5), 316(2), and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the transaction was a purely commercial one between two registered firms, involving advance payments and issuance of receipts and GST invoices. He argued that mere failure to supply goods or a breach of contractual obligation does not constitute cheating unless there is dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction, citing Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd., and Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar. He asserted that the complainant had efficacious civil remedies available and that the criminal case was an abuse of the process of law. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State and the complainant opposed the application, contending that the nature and gravity of the allegations did not warrant anticipatory bail.