Suresh Maganlal Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chitra Sonawane.

905-APL-466-2020 (corrected).doc

(Corrected as per speaking to minutes order dated 3.10.2023).

¶4

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.466 OF 2020

¶5

Suresh Maganlal Mehta
Versus

¶6

1.The State of Maharashtra
2.M/s Nikita Enterprises

¶7

…
Applicant.

¶8

 …
Respondents.

¶9

Mr Junaid S. Shabwany, Advocate for applicant.
Mr HJ Dedhia, APP for State.
Mr Santaram A. Tarale for Respondent No.2.

¶10

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2023.10.03 18:00:46 +0530

¶11

Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.

¶12

Date: 12 September 2023.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard Mr Junaid S. Shabwany, the learned Counsel for
the applicant; Mr.Santaram A.Tarale, the learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the second respondent; and Mr HJ
Dedhia, learned APP for the respondent/State.

¶15

2.The Applicant, accused in RCC No.114 of 2015, has
approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
and setting aside the order dated 16.11.2018 of the
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision No.383
of 2015. By the said order, the learned Judge issued a process

¶16

Page No. 1 of 5 ____________________________________________ 12 September 2023.

¶17

Chitra Sonawane. 905-APL-466-2020 (corrected).doc

¶18

against the applicant and four others under Sections 406 and
420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and quashed
and set aside the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by the
learned Magistrate in RCC No.114 of 2015 whereby the
learned Magistrate refused to issue a process and dismissed
the complaint.

¶19

3.It is the case of the complainant that Suresh Maganlal
Mehta, the accused, had placed an order for iron sheets
amounting to Rs.5,79,845/-. The goods were delivered as per
the order. Suresh assured the complainant that the payment
would be made within 15 days. Despite numerous requests
from the complainant, Suresh only paid Rs.35,000/- and
declined to pay the remaining balance.

¶20

4.Mr.S.A.Tarale, learned Counsel for the second
respondent/original complainant, submitted that the
allegations in the complaint satisfied the ingredients of Section
420 of IPC as the Applicant intentionally deceived respondent
No.2. According to the learned Counsel, it is not necessary to
reproduce in the complaint and the verification statement all
the ingredients of the offence, nor it is necessary that the
complainant should state in so many words that the intention

¶21

Page No. 2 of 5 ____________________________________________ 12 September 2023.

¶22

Chitra Sonawane. 905-APL-466-2020 (corrected).doc

¶23

of the accused was dishonest and fraudulent. It is submitted
that the averments in the complaint make out a prima facie
case for issuance of a process against the accused, and the
impugned order of the Magistrate reflects non-application of
mind. In support of his contentions, he relied on Rajesh Bajaj
Vs. State NCT of Delhi & Ors. (1999)3 SCC 259.

¶24

5.Perused the records, more particularly, the complaint
and the verification statement of the original complainant. It
is important to note that in order to find someone guilty
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to
demonstrate that they had fraudulent or dishonest intentions
while making the promise. In the present case, the records
show that the second respondent supplied goods to the
accused, and the dispute arose from this commercial
transaction. The allegations in the complaint and verification
statement make it clear that the dispute is of a civil nature and
can be resolved through civil law. Even if all the allegations in
the complaint and the verification statement are accepted as
true, there is no evidence to support the prosecution under
Sections 406 and 420 of IPC against the applicant. Nothing is
on record to suggest that the applicant had malafide
intentions. Without a culpable intention at the time of

¶25

Page No. 3 of 5

¶26

12 September 2023.

¶27

Chitra Sonawane. 905-APL-466-2020 (corrected).doc

¶28

making a promise, no offence under Section 420 of IPC can
be established.

¶29

6.An offence of criminal breach of trust is defined under
Section 405 of IPC. It inherently requires the property to be
entrusted. This is followed by a dishonest misappropriation or
conversion of the property by the agent for personal use or
disposal of the property in violation of the law that dictates
how the entrustment should be handled. It could also involve
a dishonest use or disposal of property in violation of any
legal contract, either express or implied, concerning the
handling of the entrustment or deliberately permitting
another person to do so. To establish a charge under this
section, the prosecution must prove both the entrustment of
the property and one or more of the other alternatives
mentioned above, with dishonest intent being the key
element. However, in this case, no aspects of criminal breach
of trust are evident.

¶30

7.In such circumstances, to prevent abuse of the process of
Court, and to ensure justice, it becomes imperative to quash
and set aside the impugned order of the learned Sessions
Judge. The learned Magistrate has rightly concluded that the

¶31

Page No. 4 of 5

¶32

12 September 2023.

¶33

Chitra Sonawane. 905-APL-466-2020 (corrected).doc

¶34

alleged facts in the complaint and verification do not
constitute any criminal offence against the applicant/accused.

¶35

8.As a result, the order of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.383 of 2015 dated
16.11.2018 is quashed and set aside qua the applicant only,
and the order passed by the learned Magistrate refusing to
issue a process against the present applicant is upheld.

¶36

Page No. 5 of 5

¶37

12 September 2023.

Suresh Maganlal Mehta v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Maganlal Mehta v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Freudenberg Filtration Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Snehal Ac and R Engg. Pvt. Ltd.and Ors.

T. S Natrajan Vs State of Maharashtra

Amar Ranu Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chagan Bapu Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pesi Shavak Patel and Anr. Vs Rita Chandermohan Agarwal Thr Poa Holder Dhruv Chandermohan Agarwal and Anr.

Chagan Bapu Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.