Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Naresh Kumar and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 196) - (Supreme Court) (12 Mar 2024)

Mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case

MANU/SC/0193/2024

Criminal

The Appellants before present Court have challenged the order of the High Court by which their petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for quashing the FIR has been dismissed. The case of the Appellants before the High Court was that, the FIR which was instituted by the complainant i.e. Respondent No. 2 is primarily a civil dispute and has no criminal element and the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants is nothing but an abuse of the process and consequently, they had invoked the extraordinary powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.

The dispute between the parties is primarily, civil in nature. It is after all a question of how many bicycles the complainant had assembled and the dispute between the parties is only regarding the figure of bicycles and consequently of the amount liable to be paid. This is a civil dispute. The complainant has not been able to establish that the intention to cheat the complainant was there with the Appellants right from the beginning.

In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, this Court recognized that, although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature.

Essentially, the present dispute between the parties relates to a breach of contract. A mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case, as held by this Court in Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr. Similarly, dealing with the distinction between the offence of cheating and a mere breach of contractual obligations, this Court, in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, has held that every breach of contract would not give rise to the offence of cheating, and it is required to be shown that the Accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.

In the case at hand, the dispute between the parties was not only essentially of a civil nature but in this case the dispute itself stood settled later. There is no criminal element here and consequently the case here is nothing but an abuse of the process. The order of the High Court is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : CIVIL DISPUTE   FIR   QUASHING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved