http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (crl.) 1971  of  1999

PETITIONER: M/S.  MEDCHL CHEMICALS & PHARMA P.  LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M/S.  BIOLOGICAL E.  LTD.  & ORS.   RESPONDENTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/02/2000

BENCH: G.B.Pattanaik, U.C.Banerjee

JUDGMENT:

BANERJEE,J.

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     Leave granted.

     Exercise  of jurisdiction under the inherent power  as envisaged  in Section 482 of the Code to have the  complaint or  the  charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather a  rule and  the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be  treated  as  rarest  of rare so as not  to  scuttle  the prosecution.   With the lodgment of First Information Report the  ball  is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes  its own  course and the investigation ensues in accordance  with the  provisions of law.  The jurisdiction as such is  rather limited  and  restricted and its undue expansion is  neither practicable nor warranted.  In the event, however, the court on  perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that  the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face  of  it does not constitute or disclose any offence  as alleged,  there ought not to be any hesitation to rise  upto the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is  required under the law.  Frustrated litigants ought  not to  be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a  legal  process and such an investigation ought not to  be allowed  to  be continued since the same is opposed  to  the concept  of  justice,  which is paramount.   Factual  matrix therefore would thus be relevant in the matter of assessment of  the  situation  as  to  whether  civic  profile  would outweigh  the criminal outfit.  It appears that as against the   initiation  of  proceeding  on   the  file   of   17th Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Hyderabad against  the  appellant under  Sections 120B, 418, 415 and 420 read with Section  34 Indian  Penal Code, the respondents moved the High Court for quashing  of complaint and the Learned Single Judge on  15th February,  1999  in  Criminal Petition No.5386 of  1998  did quash  the  complaint and hence the petitioner is in  appeal before  this Court.  The Learned Single Judge while  dealing with  the  matter  came to a definite  conclusion  that  the complaint   does  not  disclose   any  offence  having  been committed  by the accused petitioner and as such allowed the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

petition  for quashing of the complaint.  The factual  score depict  that  the respondents approached the petitioner  for the  purpose  of securing Ethambutol Hydrochloride  drug  in bulk  for  sale and use in various pharmaceutical drugs  and products  being manufactured by the respondent Company.   It is  at this juncture that the Petitioner has come out with a definite  case  that by reason of a promise  of  maintaining continuous supply of raw materials to the petitioners herein for  the  purpose of manufacturing Ethambutol  Hydrochloride and  in  such a way so as not to cause any  interruption  or hindrance to the manufacturing activity of the Complainants factory,   the   Complainant-petitioner   entered  into   an agreement  dated 31st August, 1997 which inter alia  records as below:  It is the responsibility of the party of the 2nd part  to maintain sufficient inventory of the Raw  Materials as  described  in  the  Annexure  I  in  order  to  maintain consistent supplies to the manufacturer and not to cause any interruption/hindrance  with  the manufacturing activity  by the manufacturer.

     It  is on the basis of the agreement as noticed  above and  failure  to  comply therewith, it is  stated  that  the petitioner herein has lost a substantial amount of money and to  the extent of about one crore and the sufferance of loss has  been by reason of specific assurance and representation which  obviously turned out to be false.   Misrepresentation on  the  part  of  the respondent  accused  persons  to  the Complainant, has been the major grievance and a definite and specific   case   has   been   made    out   that   such   a misrepresentation  was  intentionally   effected  since  the accused persons were in the know of things that in the event the  supplies  are not effected, as per the  agreement,  the Complainant is likely to suffer a wrongful loss which as the complaint  proceeds,  in  the interest  of  the  transaction between  the  parties,  the accused persons  were  bound  to protect.   It is on this score that relevant extracts of the complaint  ought  to  be  noticed  at  this  juncture.   The complaint inter alia provides as below:  (i) ...Clause 9 of the  Agreement  dated 31.8.1997 states that the schedule  of supply  of  raw materials by the party of the 2nd  Part  (A1 Company)  and  the delivery of the finished product  by  the party  of the 1st Part (Complainant) shall be as in Annexure III (to the Agreement)

     (ii)  Annexure  III to the Agreement  dated  31.8.1997 would show that the supply of raw material DL2 Amino Butanol by A1 to the Complainant must be 15,210 Kgs or 15.21 Mts per month to facilitate and sustain a monthly production of 8500 Kgs.   or  8.5  Mts.   of the  finished  product  Ethambutol Hydrochloride per month.

     (iii)  Another main factor being that the  Complainant should  not  suffer any loss on account of the execution  of the  agreement  with  A1.  The Complainant  states  that  it entered  into  the Agreement dated 31.8.1997 with  A1  under which  the Complainant has been converting the raw materials supplied  by A1 into the bulk drug Ethambutol  Hydrochloride and  supplying  it  back  to  A1  on  prescribed  conversion charges.

     (iv) ..The Complainant states that the supply of raw materials,  particularly the principal imported raw material DL2  Amino  Butanol, by A1 was far from regular almost  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

the  beginning  of  the  agreement.  This  was  often  being informed  to  A1  through A2, A3, A4 and A5.  Based  on  the representations made by A1 through A2 to A5, the Complainant had  planned its production according to the agreement  i.e. on  the basis of supply of 15,210 kgs.  DL2 Amino Butanol by A1  for  conversion  every   month,  but  the  Complainants production  plans  were totally dislocated and disrupted  on account  of A1s willful failure to supply the raw materials as represented by them through A2, A3, A4 and A5.

     (v)  ..The Complainant states that it had to incur  a loss  of  over  Rs.  One crore due to the  willful  defaults committed by the Accused.  These defaults on part of A1 were repeatedly  brought  to  the notice of the  Accused  through telephonic  calls  by the Complainant, more particularly  in the fax message of 15.12.97 and 10.2.98 to A1 and A3.

     (vi) The Complainant had a meeting with A2 on 4.4.1998 which  was  also  attended by A3.  At this meeting  held  on 4.4.98,  A2  and A3 agreed with the position stated  by  the Complainant  and made representations that the supply of raw material  by A1, particularly the critical raw material  DL2 Amino  Butanol,  would  be  kept   up  regularly  to  enable production   of  8  MTs  of   the  finished  product.    The Complainant  reduced these representations by A1 through  A2 and  A3  into writing on the same day and wrote  the  letter dated  4.4.98 to A1 through A3.  The contents of this letter have  not been rebutted by A1.  The Complainant states  that inspite  of this, the Accused deliberately failed to act  on their  representations made to the Complainant on 4.4.98 and thus continued to inflict huge losses on the Complainant

     (vii)  ..The Complainant states that in its talks and discussions  with the Accused, it had been indicating to A2, A3,  A4, A5 and A6 that in case A1 could not keep up to  its representations  which  put the Complainant to huge  losses, this clause 15 could be invoked and the agreement terminated by  the Complainant giving 2 months notice to A1.  But  the Accused  would, on these occasions, persuade the Complainant not   to   invoke   this    provision   and   make   further representations  to  the Complainant that the supply of  raw materials  would  henceforth  be kept at the  agreed  level. However,  these  representations were not acted upon by  the Accused   while,   on  the   other  hand,  believing   these representations,   the   Complainant   made   schedules   of production, but was left without materials, holding on to an idle  plant  carrying  idle labour and thus  incurring  huge monetary losses.

     (viii)  ..The  Complainant now understands  that  the above  false representations were made by the Accused solely with  the purpose of putting the Complainant to huge  losses and  crippling  them  since   the  Accused  themselves  were planning  to  manufacture in their own facilities  the  bulk drug   Ethambutol  Hydrochloride  and   wanted  to  put  the Complainant  out  of competition by ruining them by  keeping them  out of production which was achieved by the Accused by making  false  representations of supply of raw material  at the agreed levels and then willfully failing and omitting to act as per these representations.

     (ix)  The  Complainant  was   also  persuaded  by  the representations  of  the  Accused to  desist  from  invoking Clause  15  of the Agreement and revoke it which would  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

reduced  its  losses to some extent.  The above acts of  the Accused  clearly  attract  the ingredients  of  the  offence punishable U/Sec.415 I.P.C..

     (x)  the Accused were having dishonest intention and it  was with such intention that the Complainant Company was fraudulently  and  dishonestly  induced to  enter  into  the Agreement  dt.   31.8.97.   The dishonest intention  of  the Accused  is further seen from the complaint lodged by A6  on behalf of A1 against three officers of the Complainant.

     (xi) The Accused were fully aware that the Complainant is  a  reputed manufacturer of Ethambutol Hydrochloride  and they  are  having  good  reputation in  Indan  and  Overseas markets.  The Accused were themselves contemplating entering into  production  of Ethambutol Hydrochloride and wanted  to eliminate  the  competition  from the  Complainant  who  had established their name in the market.  Keeping this in mind, the  Accused,  in  order  to earn wrongful  gain  and  cause wrongful  loss  to the Complainant, acted in  the  aforesaid manner, inducing the Complainant through representations (by the  Accused) to commit to conversion work and  consequently schedule  its  production  accordingly  and  then  willfully failing  to act as per the representations thus putting  the Complainant to huge losses.

     (xii)  The Complainant further states that but for the false  representations  made by the Accused at the  time  of entering  into the Agreement dt.  31.8.97, it  (Complainant) would  not  have entered into this Contract.  The  aforesaid acts  of  the  Accused  have  ruined  the  finances  of  the Complainant  and it had to incur huge loss due to these acts of  the Accused.  The Complainant states that the above said acts  of  the  Accused clearly attract  the  ingredients  of Section 420 I.P.C..

     (xiii)  The  preceding paragraphs in this  Complaint would  clearly  reveal  that the Accused who  are  bound  to protect the interests of the Complainant in the transactions under  the  Agreement dt.31.8.97 have not only  cheated  the Complainant  by  causing wrongful loss to it, but have  also failed  to protect the interests of the Complainants in  the transactions.   Hence, the Accused are liable to be punished U/Sec.418 I.P.C.

     (xiv) .The Complainant states that from whatever has been stated and set out herein above, it is absolutely clear that  A1  to A6 had, in criminal conspiracy with each  other and  in  furtherance  of the common intention  of  all  have committed  the above offences under Section 415 I.P.C.   and 420  I.P.C.   Letter correspondence, the Complaint  and  the documents relating to the Agreement dt.  31.8.97 would prove that  A2 to A6 have very much participated in the affairs of A1  and  in particular, those relating to  the  transactions under the Agreement dt.  31.8.97.

     This  longish  narration  could   have  probably  been avoided, but it cannot be so done by reason of the fact that the  Learned  Single Judge has only recorded :  It  appears that  under an agreement the accused were obliged to  supply raw  materials for production to the Complainant which  they failed  to  do.  I do not find any allegation whatsoever  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

the complaint which would disclose a criminal offence.

     Before  proceeding  further in the matter, let us  now deal  with  the  offences alleged in the  First  Information Report.   The  first offence alleged is that  of  cheating within  the  meaning of Section 415 IPC .   For  convenience sake  Section 415 reads as below:  415.  Cheating  Whoever, by  deceiving any person, fradulently or dishonestly induces the  person  so  deceived  to deliver any  property  to  any person,  or  to  consent that any person  shall  retain  any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do  or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit  if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is  likely  to cause damage or harm to that person in  body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat

     .  Explanation  A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

     The  Complaint  is also said to be under  Section  418 I.P.C.  which reads as below:  418.  Cheating with knowledge that  wrongful  loss  may  ensue to  person  whose  interest offender  is  bound to protect.   Whoever cheats  with  the knowledge  that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful  loss to  a person whose interest in the transaction to which  the cheating relates, he was bound , either by law or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either  description  for  a term which may extend  to  three years, or with fine, or with both.

     The  Complaint  also alleges an offence said  to  have been  committed  under  Section 420 I.P.C.  which  reads  as below:   420.  Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.    Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the  person deceived to deliver any property to any  person, or  to  make,  alter or destroy the whole or any part  of  a valuable  security,  or anything which is signed or  sealed, and  which  is  capable of being converted into  a  valuable security,  shall  be  punished with imprisonment  of  either description  for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

     The ingredients require to constitute an offence under Section 415 has been lucidly dealt with by this Court in the Case  of  Ram  Jas  v.  State of U.P.  (1970  (2)  SCC  740) wherein  this  Court  observed as below:   The  ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating are-

     (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;

     (ii)(a)  the  person so deceived should be induced  to deliver  any property to any person, or to consent that  any person  shall  retain  any property;  or (b) the  person  so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything  which  he would not do or omit if he were  not  so deceived;  and

     (ii)  in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act or omission should  be one which causes or is likely to cause damage  or harm  to  the  person induced in body, mind,  reputation  or property.

     While  Section 415 is an offence of cheating,  Section 418  deals  with cheating with knowledge that wrongful  loss

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

may  ensue to a person whose interest the offender is  bound to  protect  and  Section 420 is  cheating  and  dishonestly inducing  delivery  of  property.  In order to  attract  the provisions of Sections 418 and 420 the guilty intent, at the time of making the promise is a requirement and an essential ingredient  thereto  and  subsequent failure to  fulfil  the promise  by  itself  would  not attract  the  provisions  of Section  418  or  420.   Mens rea is one  of  the  essential ingredients  of  the offence of cheating under Section  420. As  a  matter of fact illustration (g) to Section 415  makes the  position clear enough to indicate that mere failure  to deliver  in  breach  of  an agreement would  not  amount  to cheating  but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract  and it is this concept which obviously has weighed with  the  Learned  Single  Judge.    But  can  the  factual situation  as narrated above in the longish reproduction  of the  complaint  lend  support  to the  observations  of  the Learned Judge, the answer is pivotal one but before so doing one  other  aspect as regards the powers under  Section  482 Cr.P.C.   ought to be noticed.  As noted herein before  this power  is  to be exercised with care and caution and  rather sparingly  and has been so held on more occasions than  one. In the case of Pratibha Rani v.  Suraj Kumar 1985 SCC (Crl.) 180  this Court pointed out that the High Court should  very sparingly  exercise its discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In  L.V.Jadhav  v.  Shankarrao Abasaheb Pawar [AIR  1983  SC 1219:   (1983)  4 SCC 231:  1983 SCC (Crl) 813]  this  Court observed:    The  High  Court,  we  cannot   refrain   from observing,  might  well have refused to invoke its  inherent powers  at  the  very  threshold  in  order  to  quash   the proceedings,  for  these  powers are meant to  be  exercised sparingly  and  with circumspection when there is reason  to believe that the process of law is being misused to harass a citizen.

     Needless  to  record  however and it being  a  settled principle  of law that to exercise powers under Section  482 of  the Code, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined  on  the  basis  of  the  allegation  made  in  the complaint  and the High Court at that stage has no authority or  jurisdiction  to  go  into the  matter  or  examine  its correctness.   Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall  be  taken  into consideration  without  any  critical examination of the same.  But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint.  The observation in Smt.  Nagawwa v. Veeranna  Shivalingappa  Konjalgi  [1976 (3) SCC  736]  lend support  to  the  above  statement of law.   (1)  Where  the allegations  made in the complaint or the statements of  the witnesses  recorded  in support of the same taken  at  their face  value make out absolutely no case against the  accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;

     (2)  Where  the allegations made in the complaint  are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person  can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

     (3)  Where the discretion exercised by the  Magistrate in  issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having  been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible;  and

     (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects,  such  as,  want  of  sanction,  or  absence  of  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

complaint by legally competent authority and the like.

     The  cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide  sufficient  guidelines  to  indicate  contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings.

     58.   The same principles would apply mutatis mutandis to a criminal complaint.

     59.   We now come to the question as to whether or not a  clear  allegation of entrustment and misappropriation  of properties  was made by the appellant in her complaint  and, if  so,  was  the  High  Court  justified  in  quashing  the complaint  at  that  stage.  It is well settled  by  a  long course  of decisions that for the purpose of exercising  its power  under  Section  482  Cr.P.C.  to quash  a  FIR  or  a complaint  the High Court would have to proceed entirely  on the  basis  of the allegations made in the complaint or  the documents  accompanying  the  same  per   se.   It  has   no jurisdiction  to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.   In  case  no  offence  is  committed  on  the allegation  and the ingredients of Sections 405 and 406, IPC are  not  made  out, the High Court would  be  justified  in quashing the proceedings.

     In  the  matter  under  consideration, if  we  try  to analyse  the guidelines as specified in Shivalingappas case (supra) can it be said that the allegations in the complaint do  not  make  out  any  case against  the  accused  nor  it discloses  the ingredients of an offence alleged against the accused   or  the  allegations   are  patently  absurd   and inherently  improbable  so that no prudent person  can  ever reach  to such a conclusion that there is sufficient  ground for  proceeding  against the accused.  In the present  case, the  complaint  as  noticed above does  not,  however,  lend credence to the questions posed.  It is now well settled and one  need not dilate on this score, neither we intend to  do so presently that the allegations in the complaint will have to  be  accepted on the face of it and truth or  falsity  of which  would not be gone into by the Court at this  earliest stage  as noticed above:  whether or not allegations in  the complaint  were  true is to be decided on the basis  of  the evidence led at the trial and the observations on this score in  the  case  of Nagpur Steel & Alloys Pvt.  Ltd.   v.   P. Radhakrishna [1997 SCC (Crl.) 1073] ought to be noticed.  In paragraph 3 of the report this Court observed:  3.  We have perused  the complaint carefully.  In our opinion it  cannot be  said that the complaint did not disclose the  commission of  an  offence.  Merely because the offence  was  committed during  the course of a commercial transaction, would not be sufficient  to  hold  that the complaint did not  warrant  a trial.  Whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true was to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led at the  trial  in the complaint case.  It certainly was  not  a case in which the criminal trial should have been cut short. The  quashing  of  the  complaint   has  resulted  in  grave miscarriage  of justice.  We, therefore, without  expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, allow this appeal and set  aside the impugned order of the High Court and  restore the  complaint.  The learned trial Magistrate shall  proceed with  the complaint and dispose of it in accordance with law expeditiously.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

     Be  it  noted that in the matter of exercise  of  High Courts  inherent  power,  the only requirement  is  to  see whether continuance of the proceeding would be a total abuse of  the  process  of  Court.  The  Criminal  Procedure  Code contains  a detailed procedure for investigation, charge and trial,  and  in  the event, the High Court  is  desirous  of putting a stop to the known procedure of law, the High Court must  use a proper circumspection and as noticed above, very great care and caution to quash the complaint in exercise of its  inherent jurisdiction.  Recently, this Court in Trisuns Chemical  Industry  v.  Rajesh Agarwal and others (1999  (5) SCALE  609) observed:  5.  Respondents counsel in the High Court  put  forward mainly two contentions.  First was  that the  dispute  is  purely  of a civil  nature  and  hence  no prosecution  should have been permitted, and the second  was that  the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gandhidham has no  jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Learned Single Judge  has  approved  both the contentions and  quashed  the complaint and the order passed by the magistrate thereon.

     6.   On  the first count learned Single Judge  pointed out  that  there was a specific clause in the Memorandum  of Understanding  arrived between the parties that disputes, if any,  arising between them in respect of any transaction  be resolved through arbitration.  High Court made the following observations:

     Besides  supplies of processed soyabean were received by  the  complainant company without any objection  and  the same  have  been exported by the  complainant-company.   The question whether the complainant-company did suffer the loss as  alleged  by it are the matters to be adjudicated by  the Civil  Court  and cannot be the subject matter  of  criminal prosecution.

     7.   Time  and again this Court has been pointing  out that  the  quashment  of FIR or a complaint in  exercise  of inherent  powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme  exceptions  (vide State of Haryana v.   Bhajan  Lal (1992  Suppl.(1)  SCC 335 and Rajesh Bajaj v.  State NCT  of Delhi (1999 (3) SCC 259)].

     8.   In the last referred case this court also pointed out  that  merely because an act has a civil profile is  not sufficient  to  denude it of its criminal outfit.  We  quote the following observations:

     It  may  be  that the facts narrated in  the  present complaint  would as well reveal a commercial transaction  or money  transaction.  But that is hardly a reason for holding that  the  offence  of  cheating would  elude  from  such  a transaction.   In  fact, many a cheatings were committed  in the course of commercial and also money transactions.

     9.  We are unable to appreciate the reasoning that the provision  incorporated  in the agreement for referring  the disputes  to  arbitration is an effective substitute  for  a criminal  prosecution  when the disputed act is an  offence. Arbitration  is a remedy for affording reliefs to the  party affected  by  breach  of the agreement  but  the  arbitrator cannot  conduct  a  trial of any act which  amounted  to  an offence  albeit  the  same  act may be  connected  with  the discharge of any function under the agreement.  Hence, those are  not  good  reasons for the High Court to axe  down  the complaint at the threshold itself.  The investigating agency

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

should  have  had the freedom to go into the whole gamut  of the  allegations  and  to  reach a conclusion  of  its  own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases as indicated in State of Haryana v.Bhajan Lal (Supra).

     On  careful reading of the complaint, in our view,  it cannot  be  said  that the complaint does not  disclose  the commission  of an offence.  The ingredients of the  offences under Sections 415, 418 and 420 cannot be said to be totally absent  on  the basis of the allegations in  the  complaint. We,  however,  hasten  to  add   that  whether  or  not  the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct has to be decided  on the basis of the evidence to be led at the trial in  the  complaint case but simply because of the fact  that there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not  by itself clothe the Court to come to a conclusion that civil  remedy is the only remedy available to the  appellant herein.   Both  criminal  law and civil law  remedy  can  be pursued in divers situations.  As a matter of fact they are not   mutually  exclusive  but   clearly  co-extensive   and essentially  differ  in their content and consequence.   The object  of criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the  accused,  on proof of the offence, is deprived  of  his liberty  and  in some cases even his life.  This  does  not, however,  affect  civil  remedies  at   all  for  suing  the wrongdoer  in  cases  like  arson,  accidents  etc.   It  is anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal  prosecution is completely barred .  The two  types of actions are quite different in content, scope and impart [vide  Pratibha Rani v.  Suraj Kumar (supra)].  Mr.  Mishra, the learned Senior Advocate for the respondents herein being the  accused persons, strongly relied upon the decisions  of this Court in the case of Dr.  Sharma Nursing Home v.  Delhi Administration 1998 (8) SCC 745 wherein this Court observed: that  findings  of Section 420 IPC has been rested only  on the  reception and did not go into the question whether  the complainant  and  its accompanymen disclosed  the  essential ingredient  of  the  offence under Section 420  IPC  namely, disclosed  inducement.   Mr.   Mishra upon reliance  in  Dr. Sharmas  case (supra) also contended that Section 24 of the I.P.C has defined the word dishonesty to mean a deliberate intent to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.  It has been the specific case of the complainant that from the beginning of  the transaction there was a definite intent on the  part of  the  accused  persons  to cause  wrongful  loss  to  the complainant.   This  aspect of the matter, however, has  not been  taken  note  of  by the  learned  Single  Judge.   The decision  of  this Court in Dr.  Sharmas case (supra)  thus does  not  lend any assistance to Mr.  Mishra in support  of quashing  of  the criminal complaint.  Some other  decisions have also been cited but we do not feel it inclined to refer to the same except one noted above since they do not advance the  case  of  the  respondents   in  any  way   whatsoever. Considering   the   factual  aspect  of   the   matter,   we unhesitatingly  state,  however, that the issue involved  in the  matter  under consideration is not a case in which  the criminal  trial should have been short circuited.  We, thus, without  expressing  any opinion on the merits of  the  case allow  the  Appeal and set aside the impugned order  of  the High  Court  and restore the complaint.  The  learned  trial Magistrate  shall proceed with the complaint and dispose  of the same in accordance with the law with utmost expectation. Be  it clarified however that observations as above in  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

judgment be not taken as an expression of opinion of ours.