‘Mere breach of a promise cannot give rise to criminal prosecution’; Gauhati HC quashes criminal proceedings against doctor accused of cheating man of Rs 2 Lakhs

Editor_4

4 days ago

Gauhati High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 ¹ read with Sections 401 ² and 397 ³ of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the order, whereby the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 ⁴ and 406 ⁵ of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the accused as well as the criminal proceedings pending therein, a Single Judge Bench of Kaushik Goswami, J., allowed the petition holding that there seemed to be no misappropriation or fraudulent or dishonest intention of the accused at the beginning of the transaction thus, no case under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC could be made out.

Background

Allegedly, the accused agreed to sell his plot of land to the complainant and asked for an advance payment of Rs. 2 lakhs. Accordingly, the complainant paid the advance money in the presence of two witnesses and received the transaction receipt. However, later there was no compliance on the end of the accused. Aggrieved, the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused and then attempted to compromise the matter. The accused at that time expressed to pay the lump-sum amount.

Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint petition alleging cheating by the accused. A complaint case was registered, and cognizance was taken by the Trial Court under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC against the accused. Aggrieved, the accused filed the present petition.

Analysis and Decision

The Court reiterated that every breach of trust may not result in a criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of fraudulent misappropriation. The act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong, in which an aggrieved person may seek redressal for damages in Civil Courts, but a breach of trust with mens rea gives rise to criminal prosecution. Similarly, a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction. To hold the person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intentions at the time of making the promise.

The Court held that in the present case, there seemed to be no misappropriation, or fraudulent or dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction, thus a case under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC could not be made out. The Court further held that a mere breach of a promise cannot give rise to criminal prosecution. Thus, the order of the Trial Court taking cognizance under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC against the accused was palpably and manifestly erroneous.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition thereby quashing the Trial Court order taking cognizance as well as the whole criminal proceedings.

[Sri Brajendra Das v. State of Assam, Criminal Petition No.1089 of 2018, decided on 07-03-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the petitioner: B. Goswami

For the respondent: P.S. Lahkar