The Supreme Court allowed a criminal appeal for anticipatory bail. It reiterated that mere breach of contract is not a criminal offence unless dishonest intention existed at the transaction's start. Anti-criminalisation of civil disputes was emphasised.
Appellants to be released on anticipatory bail if arrested under Sections 420 and 120B IPC to comply with Section 438(2) CrPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Non-Reportable
2024 INSC 48
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 14423 OF 2023)
JAY SHRI & ANR.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up the appeal for hearing. Right to file reply is waived.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, including counsel for the complainant/informant, who has filed an application seeking impleadment, which is allowed impleading him as respondent no. 2 to the present appeal.
Prima facie , in our opinion, mere breach of contract does not amount to an offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 , unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is
shown right at the beginning of the transaction.2 This Court has
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2024.01.19 time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes 18:14:08 IST Reason:
Crl.A @ SLP(Crl.) No. 14423/2023
1
Non-Reportable
into criminal cases.3 Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.4
In view of the aforesaid position, we feel that the appellants – Jay Shri and Hitesh Kela have made out their case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of the appellants – Jay Shri and Hitesh Kela being arrested in connection with First Information Report (FIR) no. 0220/2022 dated 26.08.2022 registered with Police Station – Osiyan, District – Jodhpur Rural, Rajasthan for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC, they shall be released on bail by the arresting/investigating officer or the trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.
In addition, the appellants – Jay Shri and Hitesh Kela shall comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Recording the aforesaid, the impugned judgment/order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
We clarify that the grant of anticipatory bail and the observations made in the present order will not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Further, this order will have no bearing whatsoever on any civil proceeding(s).
3 Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736; Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others, (2022) 7 SCC 124. 4 Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736, para 13.
Crl.A @ SLP(Crl.) No. 14423/2023
2
Non-Reportable
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..................J. (SANJIV KHANNA)
..................J. (DIPANKAR DATTA)
NEW DELHI; JANUARY 19, 2024.
Crl.A @ SLP(Crl.) No. 14423/2023
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether mere breach of contract amounts to an offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC without fraudulent intention.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to appellants facing arrest for alleged offences arising from a civil dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarabjit KaurApplied¶15
Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another, (2023) 5 SCC 360 · Who else cites this
Indian Oil Corpn.Applied¶17
Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 · Who else cites this
Vijay Kumar GhaiApplied¶17
Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others, (2022) 7 SCC 124 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
JAY SHRI
ANR
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
COMPLAINANT/INFORMANT
SANJIV KHANNA
DIPANKAR DATTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
