# VIJAY KUMAR GHAI & ORS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 1 S.C.R. 884
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-03-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2022
- **Bench:** S. Abdul Nazeer, Krishna Murari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vijay-kumar-ghai-ors-v-the-state-of-west-bengal-ors-35786
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 - Quashing of
complaint - Appellant No. 1 is the Managing Director of the Public
Limited Company and Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the Directors of
the said Company -The company itself has been arrayed as proforma
Respondent No.3 - In January 2008, Respondent No. 2, an
authorized representative of SMC Global Securities Ltd, Delhi
desired to make an investment on its behalf with the appellants -It
was mutually decided between the parties that Respondent No. 2
will invest an amount of Rs. 2.5 crore with the company in lieu of
which they will be issued 2,50,000 equity shares of the company
(Respondent No. 3) - Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed share
application form along with the cheque of Rs. 2.5 crore - An
allotment letter was issued in favour of Respondent No. 2 whereby
2,50,000 shares were issued in lieu of the investment made by him -
The proforma Respondentno.3 and Respondent No.2 arrived at an
understanding, regarding the investment made by Respondent No.
2. - Having failed to bring the IPO as per memorandum of
understanding, Respondent No.2 issued a legal notice to the
Appellants, who duly replied to the legal notice denying all the
allegations contained in the legal notice - Respondent No. 2 filed a
police complaint in New Delhi - Respondent No. 2 filed a second
complaint underss.406, 409, 420, 468,120B and 34 IPC on the basis
of the same cause of action at Kolkata and the same was converted
into FIR under ss.406, 420, 120B IPC -High Court of Calcutta by
impugned judgment dismissed the quashing as well as the revision
petition filed by the Appellants - Hence instant appeal - Held: There
can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a
criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages -
While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution,
for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
885
offence of cheating - In the case at hand, complaint filed by the
Respondent No. 2 does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention
of the appellants - In order to attract the ingredients of ss.406 and
420 IPC, it is imperative on the part of the complainant to prima
facie establish that there was an intention on part of the petitioner
and/or others to cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from
the inception - It has to be prima facie established that due to such
alleged act of cheating, the complainant (Respondent No. 2) had
suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful
gain for the accused (appellant) - In absence of these elements, no
proceeding is permissible in the eyes of law with regard to the
commission of the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC - The impugned
FIR and proceedings in pursuance of charge sheet against the
appellants for the offences under ss.406, 420,120B IPC quashed -
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.406, 420,120B.
Allowing the appeal, the court
HELD: 1. "Entrustment" of property under Section 405 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence
under this. The words used are, 'in any manner entrusted with
property'. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to
clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided
they are holding a position of 'trust'. A person who dishonestly
misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms
of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust
and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code. Section
420 IPC is a serious form of cheating that includes inducement
(to lead or move someone to happen) in terms of delivery of
property as well as valuable securities. This section is also
applicable to matters where the destruction of the property is
caused by the way of cheating or inducement. Punishment for
cheating is provided under this section which may extend to
7yearsand also makes the person liable to fine. [Paras 24, 30]
[903-E-F; 905-B-D]
2. There can be no doubt that a mer

## Text

_Characters 0–39,944 of 60,393. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39944 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
884
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 884
884
VIJAY KUMAR GHAI & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2022)
MARCH 22, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 - Quashing of
complaint - Appellant No. 1 is the Managing Director of the Public
Limited Company and Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the Directors of
the said Company -The company itself has been arrayed as proforma
Respondent No.3 - In January 2008, Respondent No. 2, an
authorized representative of SMC Global Securities Ltd, Delhi
desired to make an investment on its behalf with the appellants -It
was mutually decided between the parties that Respondent No. 2
will invest an amount of Rs. 2.5 crore with the company in lieu of
which they will be issued 2,50,000 equity shares of the company
(Respondent No. 3) - Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed share
application form along with the cheque of Rs. 2.5 crore - An
allotment letter was issued in favour of Respondent No. 2 whereby
2,50,000 shares were issued in lieu of the investment made by him -
The proforma Respondentno.3 and Respondent No.2 arrived at an
understanding, regarding the investment made by Respondent No.
2. - Having failed to bring the IPO as per memorandum of
understanding, Respondent No.2 issued a legal notice to the
Appellants, who duly replied to the legal notice denying all the
allegations contained in the legal notice - Respondent No. 2 filed a
police complaint in New Delhi - Respondent No. 2 filed a second
complaint underss.406, 409, 420, 468,120B and 34 IPC on the basis
of the same cause of action at Kolkata and the same was converted
into FIR under ss.406, 420, 120B IPC -High Court of Calcutta by
impugned judgment dismissed the quashing as well as the revision
petition filed by the Appellants - Hence instant appeal - Held: There
can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a
criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages -
While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution,
for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
885
offence of cheating - In the case at hand, complaint filed by the
Respondent No. 2 does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention
of the appellants - In order to attract the ingredients of ss.406 and
420 IPC, it is imperative on the part of the complainant to prima
facie establish that there was an intention on part of the petitioner
and/or others to cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from
the inception - It has to be prima facie established that due to such
alleged act of cheating, the complainant (Respondent No. 2) had
suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful
gain for the accused (appellant) - In absence of these elements, no
proceeding is permissible in the eyes of law with regard to the
commission of the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC - The impugned
FIR and proceedings in pursuance of charge sheet against the
appellants for the offences under ss.406, 420,120B IPC quashed -
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.406, 420,120B.
Allowing the appeal, the court
HELD: 1. "Entrustment" of property under Section 405 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is pivotal to constitute an offence
under this. The words used are, 'in any manner entrusted with
property'. So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to
clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided
they are holding a position of 'trust'. A person who dishonestly
misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to the terms
of an obligation imposed is liable for a criminal breach of trust
and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code. Section
420 IPC is a serious form of cheating that includes inducement
(to lead or move someone to happen) in terms of delivery of
property as well as valuable securities. This section is also
applicable to matters where the destruction of the property is
caused by the way of cheating or inducement. Punishment for
cheating is provided under this section which may extend to
7yearsand also makes the person liable to fine. [Paras 24, 30]
[903-E-F; 905-B-D]
2. There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is
not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability
of damages. While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal
prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the
VIJAY KUMAR GHAI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
886
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
basis of the offence of cheating. In the case at hand, complaint
filed by the Respondent No. 2 does not disclose dishonest or
fraudulent intention of the appellants. [Para 34][907-B-D]
3. Having gone through the complaint/FIR and even the
chargesheet, it cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and
the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute
an offence under Section 405 & 420 IPC, 1860. Even in a case
where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the
accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention
at the time of making promise being absent, no offence under
Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out. In the instant
case, there is no material to indicate that Appellants had any
malafide intention against the Respondent which is clearly
deductible from the MOU dated 20.08.2009 arrived between the
parties. Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C on
06.06.2012, wherein his prayer for registration of an FIR was
rejected vide order dated28.02.2013 by the MM, Tis Hazari
Court, immediately after which he filed his complaint on 28.03.2013
at P.S Bowbazar, Calcutta. The timeline of filing complaints clearly
indicates the malafide intention of Respondent No. 2 which was
to simply harass the petitioners so as to pressurise them into
shelling out the investment made by Respondent No.2.
[Paras 36, 38][908-A-C, G-H]
Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2005)
10 SCC 336; Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v.
State of Bihar & Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168 : [2000] 2 SCR
859; Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. v. Sudha Seetharam
& Anr. (2019) 16 SCC 739 : [2019] 2 SCR 185; Vesa
Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2015)
8 SCC 293 : [2015] 4 SCR 27 - relied on.
V.Y. Jose & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2009) 3
SCC 78 : [2008] 17 SCR 588 Murari Lal Gupta v. Gopi
Singh (2005) 13 SCC 699; K. Jayaram and Ors. v.
Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 1194; Union of India and Ors. v.
Shantiranjan Sarkar (2009) 3 SCC 90 : [2009]
1 SCR 242; K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. & Anr.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
887
(2020) 14 SCC 552; V. Ravi Kumar v. State and Ors.
(2019) 14 SCC 568 : [2018] 14 SCR 828; Indian Oil
Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC
736 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704; A.V. Mohan Rao &
Anr. v. M Kishan Rao & Anr. (2002) 6 SCC 174 : [2002]
1 Suppl. SCR 175; Union of India & Ors. v. Cipla Ltd.
& Anr. (2017) 5 SCC 262 : [2016] 7 SCR 523; Krishna
Lal Chawla & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.(2021) 5 SCC
435; T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC
181 : [2001] 3 SCR 942; K. Jayaram and Ors. v.
Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 1194; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan
Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl.
SCR 259; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] 3 SCR
388; Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of
Uttaranchal & Ors. (2007) 12 SCC 1 : [2007]
10 SCR 847; Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd. &
Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704;
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta &
Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 691 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 672; G.
Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC
636 : [2000] 1 SCR 417; R K Dalmia vs Delhi
Administration [1963] 1 SCR 253; Sudhir Shantilal
Mehta v. CBI (2009) 8 SCC 1 : [2009] 12 SCR 682 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 17 SCR 588
referred to
Para 4.7
(2005) 13 SCC 699
referred to
Para 4.7
[2009] 1 SCR 242
referred to
Para 4.7
(2020) 14 SCC 552
referred to
Para 5.2
[2018] 14 SCR 828
referred to
Para 5.4
[2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704
referred to
Para 5.4
[2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 175
referred to
Para 5.4
[2016] 7 SCR 523
referred to
Para 9
(2021) 5 SCC 435
referred to
Para 11
VIJAY KUMAR GHAI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2001] 3 SCR 942
referred to
Para 12
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259
referred to
Para 15
[1960] 3 SCR 388
referred to
Para 16
[2007] 10 SCR 847
referred to
Para 17
[2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704
referred to
Para 18
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 672
referred to
Para 19
[2000] 1 SCR 417
referred to
Para 20
[1963] 1 SCR 253
referred to
Para 25
[2009] 12 SCR 682
referred to
Para 26
[2019] 2 SCR 185
relied on
Para 32
(2005) 10 SCC 336
relied on
Para 33
[2000] 2 SCR 859
relied on
Para 34
[2015] 4 SCR 27
relied on
Para 35
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
463 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2019 of the High Court
of Calcutta at Kolkata in C.R.R. No.731 of 2017.
Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv., Arandhati Kajju, Yash S. Vijay,
Ms. Shristi Borthakur, Shubham Bhalla, Asheesh Bajpayee, Deepak
Samota, Advs. for the Appellants.
Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Adv., Anuj Prakaash, Ms. Apurva Jain,
Prince Jain, Shreyas Jain, Kumar Mihir, Ms. Prachi Gupta, Ranjeet
Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed a gainst the judgment and order dated
01.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Calcutta (hereinafter referred
to as "High Court") in C.R.R No. 731 of 2017 filed by the appellants
praying for quashing of proceedings being G.R. Case No. 1221 of 2013
pending before the Court of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
889
Kolkata and arising out of Bowbazar Police Station Case No. 168 dated
28.03.2013 under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). By the said judgment, the High
Court dismissed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings and held
that continuance of criminal proceedings against the present appellant/
accused would not be an abuse of the process of the court.
3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as
under:
3.1 M/s. Priknit Retails Limited a public limited company having
its registered office at BXXV, 539A, 10, Jalandhar, Bye Pass Road,
Ludhiana, Punjab was incorporated in the year 2002 and subsequently
changed its name to Priknit Apparels in 2007. The company is engaged
in the manufacture and trade of apparels through chain of retail stores
under the brand name and style of Priknit. Appellant No. 1 is the Managing
Director of the Company and Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors
of the said Company. The company has been arrayed as proforma
Respondent No. 3.
3.2 In January 2008, Respondent No. 2 an authorized
representative of SMC Global Securities Ltd, Delhi desired to make an
investment on its behalf with the appellants. It was mutually decided
between the parties that Respondent No. 2 will invest an amount of Rs.
2.5 crore with the company in lieu of which they will be issued 2,50,000
equity shares of Priknit Apparel Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, Respondent
No. 2 filed their share application form along with the cheque of Rs. 2.5
crore.
3.3 Subsequently, an allotment letter dated 29.03.2008 was issued
in favour of Respondent No. 2 whereby 2,50,000 shares were issued in
lieu of the investment made by him. The proforma respondent no. 3
company and Respondent No. 2 arrived at an understanding, regarding
the investment made by Respondent No. 2.
3.4 Having failed to bring the I.P.O as per memorandum of
understanding dated 20.08.2009, Respondent No. 2 issued a legal notice
dated 06.12.2011 to the Appellants, who duly replied to the legal notice
denying all the allegations contained in the legal notice.
3.5 That on 06.01.2012, Respondent No. 2 filed a police complaint
with PS Rajender Nagar, New Delhi and the concerned officer of PS
Rajender Nagar apprised Respondent No. 2 that the complaint does not
VIJAY KUMAR GHAI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
pertain to their jurisdiction and therefore the same ought to be transferred.
On 11.04.2012, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint with the Economic
Offences Wing (hereinafter referred to as "EOW") and the said
complaint was transferred to PS Darya Ganj, New Delhi.
3.6 That on 06.06.2012, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint being
CC No. 306/1/12 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C before the Tiz Hazari
Court, New Delhi for registration of FIR against the Appellants and
their company. On 01.09.2012, Respondent No. 2 also filed another
Complaint No. 190 of 12 before Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi under
Section 68 of the Companies Act read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C which
is pending adjudication.
3.7 That the Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as
"MM"), Tis Hazari vide order dated 28.02.2013 observed that the entire
dispute raised by Respondent No. 2 was civil in nature and there was no
criminality involved, thereby turning down the prayer of Respondent No.
2 for registration of an FIR and posted the case for pre-summoning
evidence with regard to the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C
filed by Respondent No.2. It is pertinent to mention here that the order
of the MM, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi attained finality as it was not
put to further challenge.
3.8 That on 28.03.2013, Respondent No. 2 filed a second complaint
under Section 406, 409, 420, 468,120B and 34 IPC on the basis of the
same cause of action with the PS Bowbazar at Kolkata, West Bengal
and the same was converted into an FIR bearing No. 168 under Section
406, 420, 120B IPC. A final closure report dated 04.03.2014 was filed
by the concerned Police Station recommending closure of the case since
the entire dispute was found to be civil in nature.
3.9 That Respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition being GR No.
1221/2013 with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred
to as "CMM"), Kolkata against closure report dated 04.03.2014 and
vide order dated 08.03.2016, the CJM allowed the protest petition and
directed for further investigation.
3.10 In the meantime, the authorized representative of Respondent
No. 2 made a statement before the MM, Tish Hazari, New Delhi for
withdrawing the complaint case.
3.11 Appellant No. 1 received a notice dated 14.11.2016 under
Section 41(a) Cr.P.C for appearance before the Investigation Officer
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
891
(hereinafter referred to as "IO") at PS Bowbazar, Kolkata. In his reply
to the said notice, Appellant No. 1 stated that a complaint has already
been filed with the same cause of action before the Tis Hazari Court
and further sought time to produce the documents sought in the notice.
Thereafter, Appellant No. 1 sent a letter with all the relevant documents
required for investigation thereby extending full co-operation to the IO
at PS Bowbazar, Kolkata in connection with Case No. 168. The IO PS
Bowbazar, Kolkata sent another notice under Section 41(a) Cr.P.C dated
23.12.2016 to Appellant No. 1 and 2 to appear before him with the relevant
documents.
3.12 That vide order dated 14.02.2017, the CMM, Calcutta took
cognizance of the offence under Section 406, 420, 120B IPC in connection
with Case No. 168 dated 28.03.2013 corresponding to GR Case No.
1221 of 2013 i.e., protest petition.
3.13 Being aggrieved, Appellants herein filed a quashing petition
being CRR No. 731 of 2017 under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing
of FIR No. 168 dated 28.03.2013 and also impugned the proceedings in
GR Case No. 1221 of 2013 by invoking Sections 401 and 482 Cr.P.C.
3.14 That the High Court vide order dated 06.03.2017 issued notice
to the Respondents and stayed further proceeding of criminal case.
Respondent No. 2 filed an application for vacation of the stay order
granted by the High Court but the same was dismissed vide order dated
24.03.2017 while observing that Respondent No. 2 had also filed a
complaint at Delhi on the same allegations, thus the proceedings at
Calcutta were intended to harass the Appellants.
3.15 However, the High Court vide impugned judgment and order
dated 01.10.2019 dismissed the quashing as well as the revision petition
filed by the Appellants and observed that in order to exercise the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the only requirement is to see whether
continuance of the criminal proceedings would be a total abuse of the
process of the court and the continuance of the criminal proceedings
against the appellants is in no way an abuse of the process of the court.
The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: -
"In the present case, the allegation in the FIR disclosed the
offences alleged. Moreover, the allegations made in the FIR
disclosed that the petitioner induced the complainant to
purchase share or invest money by willful misrepresentation.
VIJAY KUMAR GHAI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
It is true that the complaint discloses that there was a
commercial transaction between the parties but at the same
time, it cannot be overlooked that the averments made in the
complaint/FIR prima facie revel the commission of a
cognizable offence.
Moreover, when the complaint discloses that the commercial
transaction between involve criminal offences, then the
question of quashing the complaint cannot be allowed."
Contentions on behalf of Appellants
4. Ms. Menaka Guruswamy, learned senior advocate appearing
on behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that Respondent
No.2 indulged in the practice of forum shopping by filing 2 complaints
i.e., a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Tis Hazari Court, New
Delhi on 06.06.2012 and a complaint which was eventually registered as
FIR No. 168 u/s 406, 420, 120B IPC before PS Bowbazar, Calcutta on
28.03.2013. FIR in connection with PS Bowbazar, Calcutta was lodged
during the pendency of the complaint case at Tis Hazari Court, New
Delhi and the said fact was cleverly supressed by Respondent No. 2.
4.1 It was further submitted that initially police submitted a closure
report. However, Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section
173(8) of Cr.P.C for further investigation which was allowed and after
further investigation, charge sheet was filed against the Appellants herein.
4.2 It was vehemently submitted that the complaint filed in PS
Bowbazar was the exact reproduction of the complaint filed in New
Delhi with the only difference being the place of occurrence. In the
complaint lodged at Delhi, the place of occurrence was shown to be the
office at New Delhi and in subsequent complaint at Calcutta, the place
of occurrence was changed to its office at Calcutta.
4.3 It was further submitted that the allegations contained in the
FIR are purely contractual disputes of civil nature but Respondent No. 2
has given a criminal colour to it and that breach of contract does not
come within the purview of cheating as defined in IPC. In addition to it,
it was submitted that the transaction in question between the parties as
revealed from the F.I.R was purely a sale transaction or what may be
called as a commercial transaction, therefore the question of cheating
does not arise at all.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
893
4.4 It was further submitted that there are no allegations in the
complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2 about the Appellants having
fraudulent or dishonest intentions at the time of making the representation.
4.5 It was also further submitted that the High Court failed to
appreciate that the two allegations recorded in the complaint against the
Appellants being belated allotment of shares to the complainant company
and the Appellant No. 1's failure to bring out an IPO are clearly
commercial disputes with no element of criminality.
4.6 It was further submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate
that a mere failure to keep a promise does not create any presumption
of a dishonest intention amounting to a criminal breach of trust under
Section 409 IPC or cheating under Section 420 IPC.
4.7 Heavy reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in
V.Y.Jose & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.1, Murari Lal Gupta Vs.
Gopi Singh2; K. Jayaram and Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development
Authority & Ors.3; Union of India and Ors. Vs. Shantiranjan Sarkar4.
Contentions on behalf of Respondents
5. Mrs. Anjana Prakash, learned senior advocate appearing on
behalf of the Respondents has vehemently submitted that the allegations
contained in the complaint disclosed all the ingredients of the alleged
offences and moreover, the criminal proceedings have not been initiated
with mala fide intention and that the complaint case filed before the
magistrate of Tis Hazari Court was not decided on merit and as such the
complainant cannot be barred from making a fresh complaint.
5.1 It was further submitted that the complaint at Kolkata had
been filed only after the prayer u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C was rejected by the
Delhi Court on 28.02.2013 in order to avail legal remedies available and
when the Calcutta Court on 08.03.2016 allowed further investigation,
the Respondent in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, withdrew
the complaint in Delhi on 09.09.2016.
5.2 It was further submitted that it is an established proposition of
law that two complaints can co-exist simultaneously if the scope of two
1 (2009) 3 SCC 78
2 (2005) 13 SCC 699
3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1194
4 (2009) 3 SCC 90
VIJAY KUMAR GHAI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
complaints are different. Reliance in support of the contention was placed
on the judgment of this Court in K. Jagadish Vs. Udaya Kumar G.S. &
Anr.5, wherein it was reiterated that two remedies ie. civil and criminal
are not mutually exclusive but can co-exist since they essentially differ
in their context and consequence.
5.3 It was also submitted that the established principle of quashing
is that at the stage of cognizance all that a Court is required to see if
prima facie an offence is made out and courts should restrain itself from
throttling legitimate prosecutions at the threshold and the law should be
allowed to take its course. Substantiating the same, it was submitted that
the complainant has made a specific allegation that on inducement of
the accused persons, he had parted with 2.50 crore on a false promise
that they would be allotted shares in the company. On 29.02.2008, a
false statement was made by the accused persons that the complainant
had been allotted the shares, whereas it transpired that the resolution
about the allotment of shares was taken only on 23.03.2009 that is one
year later.
5.4 Strong reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in V.
Ravi Kumar Vs. State and Ors.6; Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC
India Ltd. & Ors.7; A.V. Mohan Rao & Anr. Vs. M Kishan Rao &
Anr.8; K. Jagadish (Supra).
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar
and perused the materials placed on record.
7. Predominantly, the Indian Judiciary has time and again reiterated
that forum shopping take several hues and shades but the concept of
'forum shopping' has not been rendered an exclusive definition in any
Indian statute. Forum shopping as per Merriam Webster dictionary is:-
"The practice of choosing the court in which to bring
an action from among those courts that could properly
exercise jurisdiction based on determination of which
court is likely to provide the most favourable outcome"
5 (2020) 14 SCC 552
6 (2019) 14 SCC 568
7 (2006) 6 SCC 736
8 (2002) 6 SCC 174
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
895
8. The Indian judiciary's observation and obiter dicta has aided in
streamlining the concept of forum shopping in the Indian legal system.
This Court has condemned the practice of forum shopping by litigants
and termed it as an abuse of law and also deciphered different categories
of forum shopping.
9. A two-Judge bench of this Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs.
Cipla Ltd. & Anr.9 has laid down factors which lead to the practice of
forum shopping or choice of forum by the litigants which are as follows:-
"148. A classic example of forum shopping is when litigant
approaches one Court for relief but does not get the desired
relief and then approaches another Court for the same relief.
This occurred in Rajiv Bhatia Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and
Others10. The respondent-mother of a young child had filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Rajasthan High
Court and apparently did not get the required relief from that
Court. She then filed a petition in the Delhi High Court also
for a writ of habeas corpus and obtained the necessary relief.
Notwithstanding this, this Court did not interfere with the order
passed by the Delhi High Court for the reason that this Court
ascertained the views of the child and found that she did not
want to even talk to her adoptive parents and therefore the
custody of the child granted by the Delhi High Court to the
respondent-mother was not interfered with. The decision of
this Court is on its own facts, even though it is a classic case
of forum shopping.
149. In Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao & Ors.11
this Court noted that jurisdiction in a Court is not attracted
by the operation or creation of fortuitous circumstances. In
that case, circumstances were created by one of the parties to
the dispute to confer jurisdiction on a particular High Court.
This was frowned upon by this Court by observing that to
allow the assumption of jurisdiction in created circumstances
would only result in encouraging forum shopping.
9 (2017) 5 SCC 262
10 (1999) 8 SCC 525
11 (2013) 15 SCC 790
VIJAY KUMAR GHAI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
896
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
150. Another case of creating circumstances for the purposes
of forum shopping was World Tanker Carrier Corporation v.
SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and others12 wherein it was
observed that the respondent/plaintiff had made a deliberate
attempt to bring the cause of action namely a collision between
two vessels on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the
Bombay High Court. Bringing one of the vessels to Bombay
in order to confer jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court
had the character of forum shopping rather than anything
else.
151. Another form of forum shopping is taking advantage of
a view held by a particular High Court in contrast to a
different view held by another High Court. In Ambica
Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC
769 the assesse was from Lucknow. It challenged an order
passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal (the CESTAT) located in Delhi before the Delhi High
Court. The CESTAT had jurisdiction over the States of Uttar
Pradesh, NCT of Delhi and Maharashtra. The Delhi High
Court did not entertain the proceedings initiated by the
assessee for want of territorial jurisdiction. Dismissing the
assessee's appeal this Court gave the example of an assessee
affected by an assessment order in Bombay invoking the
jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take advantage of the
law laid down by the Delhi High Court or an assessee affected
by an order of assessment made at Bombay invoking the
jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage
of the law laid down by it and consequently evade the law
laid down by the Bombay High Court. It was said that this
could not be allowed and circumstances such as this would
lead to some sort of judicial anarchy.
155. The decisions referred to clearly lay down the principle
that the court is required to adopt a functional test vis-à-vis
the litigation and the litigant. What has to be seen is whether
there is any functional similarity in the proceedings between
one court and another or whether there is some sort of
subterfuge on the part of a litigant. It is this functional test
12 (1998) 5 SCC 310
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
897
that will determine whether a litigant is indulging in forum
shopping or not."
10. Forum shopping has been termed as disreputable practice by
the courts and has no sanction and paramountcy in law. In spite of this
Court condemning the practice of forum shopping, Respondent No. 2
filed two complaints i.e., a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Tis
Hazari Court, New Delhi on 06.06.2012 and a complaint which was
eventually registered as FIR No. 168 u/s 406, 420, 120B IPC before PS
Bowbazar, Calcutta on 28.03.2013. ie., one in Delhi and one complaint
in Kolkata. The Complaint filed in Kolkata was a reproduction of the
complaint filed in Delhi except with the change of place occurrence in
order to create a jurisdiction.
11. A two-Judge bench of this Court in Krishna Lal Chawla &
Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.13 observed that multiple complaints by the
same party against the same accused in respect of the same incident is
impermissible. It held that Permitting multiple complaints by the same
party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or
private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in
numerous criminal proceedings. As such he would be forced to keep
surrendering his liberty and precious time before the police and the courts,
as and when required in each case.
12. The legality of the second FIR was extensively discussed by
this Court in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.14. It was held that
there can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same
cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or
incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. It was
further held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section 154
of Cr.P.C has been recorded, any information received after the
commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR
as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the Cr.P.C. The
Court further held that barring situations in which a counter-case is filed,
a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or
connected cognizable offence would constitute an "abuse of the statutory
power of investigation" and may be a fit case for the exercise of power
either under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
of India
13 (2021) 5 SCC 435
14 (2001) 6 SCC 181
VIJAY KUMAR GHAI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
13. A two-Judge bench of this Court in K. Jayaram and Ors.
Vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors.15 observed:
"16. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check
multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subjectmatter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting
inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by
suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by
making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to
escape the liability of making a false statement, we are of the
view that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal
proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning
any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their
knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute,
no legal proceedings or court litigations was or is pending,
they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order
to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with
law."
14. The genesis of the present appeal originates from the impugned
order pronounced by the High Court whereby the High Court dismissed
the application filed under Section 482 as well as 401 Cr.P.C. Taking
that into concern, it is necessary to advert to the principles settled by
judicial pronouncements laying down the circumstances under which
High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
15. This Court in the widely celebrated judgment of State of
Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.16 considered in detail the
scope of the High Court powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article
226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and referred to several
judicial precedents and held that the High Court should not embark upon
an inquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the
proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its
task. At the same time, this Court identified the following cases in which
FIR/complaint can be quashed:
"102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
15 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1194
16 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
899
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without
an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the 21 proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge."
16. This Court in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab17 summarized
categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised
to quash the proceedings:-
(i)
Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
17 (1960) 3 SCR 388
VIJAY KUMAR GHAI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
(ii)
Where the allegations in the first information report or
complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their
entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii)
Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no
legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge.
17. This Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of
Uttaranchal & Ors.18 observed:-
"27. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section
482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the
power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must
be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court
should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in
a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so,
when the evidence has not been collected and produced before
the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal,
are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard
and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the
High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of
quashing the proceedings at any stage"
18. In Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.19, a twojudge Bench of this Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
and formulated guiding principles in the following terms:
"12. ... (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations
made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against
the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be
examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the
allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous
18 (2007) 12 SCC 1
19 (2006) 6 SCC 736
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
901
analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability
or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is
warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a
complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse
of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding
is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for
wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the
allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle
or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used
sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the
legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary
factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the
ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail,
the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the
complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft
of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for
making out the offence.
(v) .."
19. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors.20 made the following observation :-
"11. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section
482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the
power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be
careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being
the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from
giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts
are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not
been collected and produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and
cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient
20 (2004) 1 SCC 691
VIJAY KUMAR GHAI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
[KRISHNA MURARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down
in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any
stage.
In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent
powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case
where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is
frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out
in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which
cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to
the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code."
20. This Court in G. Sagar Suri & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Ors.21
observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise
a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters
are essentially of civil nature.
21.