Gujarat High Court
Hasmukhbhai Arjanbhai Pandor vs State Of Gujarat on 27 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 34460 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================
HASMUKHBHAI ARJANBHAI PANDOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AMRITA AJMERA FOR MR DAIFRAZ HAVEWALLA(3982) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK H SINDHI(5710) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS VRUNDA SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 27/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1 The present application is filed for quashment of the
FIR being I-C.R. No.13 of 2016 dated 06.02.2016
registered with Vijapur Police Station, District
Mehsana, for the offences punishable under Sections
406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the
period of the alleged offence is stated to be from the
year 2012 to 23.08.2015.
Page 1 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
2 As per the allegations made in the FIR, the present
applicant is the sole accused. It is alleged that the
complainant had supplied hybrid seeds, cotton seeds,
and pesticides to the applicant for the purpose of
cultivating cotton crops through various
agriculturists. As per the understanding between the
parties, upon providing such facilities, the
agriculturists would supply their produce to the
applicant, who would sell the same in the open
market. After deducting the commission of the
complainant, the remaining amount was to be paid to
the concerned agriculturists, and the complainant
had also agreed to pay 10% commission to the
present applicant. It is further alleged that, after
procuring the crops, the present applicant sold the
same in the open market without routing the
transaction through the complainant, which led to the
lodging of the present FIR for the offences punishable
under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
which is under challenge before this Court.
3 Heard the learned advocate Ms.Amrita Ajmera for the
applicant, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Sindhi for
respondent No.2 and learned APP Ms.Vrunda Shah for
the respondent-State.
4 Learned advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera submits that
Page 2 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
the complainant had duped as many as 71
agriculturists from whom cotton crops were procured,
and that the payment for the same was not made. It
is submitted that when the present applicant, along
with the said agriculturists, approached the
complainant for recovery of the amount, the
impugned FIR came to be lodged with a view to
restrain the applicant from initiating legal
proceedings. It is further submitted by the learned
advocate Ms. Ajmera that the present applicant had
also attempted to lodge a police complaint but was
unsuccessful, and therefore a private complaint came
to be filed. Against the said complaint, the present
complainant had approached this Court by way of
Criminal Misc. Application No.8115 of 2018, which
came to be dismissed by this Court, holding that a
full-fledged trial is required and that powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot
be exercised at that stage. It is also submitted by the
learned advocate Ms. Ajmera that the complainant
has attempted to project the case by producing
certain receipts to show that, except for an amount
of Rs.60,000/-, the remaining amount was borrowed
by the present applicant however, the signatures
appearing on the said receipts are alleged to be
forged. It is further submitted by the learned
advocate Ms. Ajmera that the criminal case instituted
Page 3 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
by the present applicant is still pending before the
learned trial Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, it
is contended that the impugned FIR is nothing but an
afterthought and a counterblast to the complaint filed
by the present applicant and, therefore, the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Sindhi
appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the
complainant had issued a notice in the month of
August 2015 calling upon the present applicant to
pay an amount of Rs.5,03,000/-, which was allegedly
taken by the applicant under the guise of facilitating
cultivation of cotton crops through various
agriculturists, with an assurance that the produce
would be sold to the complainant. It is submitted that
by the learned advocate Mr. Sindhi that despite
receipt of the said notice, the present applicant failed
to make the payment and instead issued a counter-
notice calling upon the complainant to pay the
amounts due to 71 agriculturists. It is further
submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Sindhi that
the complaint filed by the present applicant before
the criminal Court came to be instituted after a
period of two years from the date of the present FIR,
and therefore, the same cannot be said to be a
counterblast to the present FIR. It is also submitted
Page 4 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
that this Court, in the quashing petition filed by the
present complainant against the said criminal
complaint, has already observed that the matter
requires a full-fledged trial. In view of the similarity of
allegations, this Court ought not to exercise its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in the present case. It is further
submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Sindhi that
the list of 71 agriculturists produced by the applicant
is itself forged, and therefore, the allegations made in
the impugned FIR require proper investigation. In the
aforesaid background, it is prayed that the present
application be dismissed.
6 Learned APP Ms.Vrunda Shah has opposed this
application.
7 Considering the averments made in the FIR as well as
the submissions advanced by the learned advocates
for the respective parties, it emerges from the record
that the allegation in the impugned FIR against the
present applicant is to the effect that the applicant
had taken an amount of Rs.5,03,000/-, out of which
Rs.60,000/- was towards hybrid seeds, under the
assurance that the same would be supplied to
various agriculturists and that the agriculturists
would sell their produce through the applicant. It is
Page 5 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
further alleged that, on different dates, additional
amounts were taken by the applicant, for which
certain vouchers are stated to have been signed. It
appears that upon failure to repay the said amount
as well as failure to route the sale of the crops as
agreed, the impugned FIR came to be lodged. On
perusal of the vouchers alleged to have been signed
by the applicant, it is noticed that they refer to the
amount as “advance/prepayment” (ઉપાડ). Though the
applicant disputes the said vouchers, this Court, at
this stage, would not enter into disputed questions of
fact. However, even if the vouchers are assumed to
be genuine, the allegations in the FIR prima facie
indicate that the dispute between the parties is
essentially of a civil nature relating to recovery of
amount.
7.1 It emerges that the amount allegedly borrowed
by the present applicant has not been repaid and,
instead of initiating appropriate recovery
proceedings, the present FIR has been lodged. So
far as the allegations of forgery with regard to the
signatures in the list of 71 agriculturists are
concerned, this Court has already directed the
same to be examined by the learned trial Court
and, therefore, at this stage, it would be
inappropriate to adjudicate upon the said aspect.
Page 6 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
7.2 At this stage, reference of sections 406 and 420
of the IPC is required to be made:
“406:Punishment for criminal breach of trust.–Whoever
commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
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.
8 To attract the provisions of Section 406 of the IPC,
the ingredients of “criminal breach of trust” as
defined under Section 405 are required to be
satisfied. The essential ingredients of the said offence
are: (i) entrustment of property or dominion over it to
the accused; and (ii) dishonest misappropriation or
conversion of such property to his own use, or
disposal thereof in violation of any legal contract or
Page 7 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
trust.
9 Admittedly, the present petitioner was neither
entrusted with the property nor has he dishonestly
misappropriated or converted the same for his own
use. To attract the provisions of Section 420, the
offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 is
required to be considered.
“415
The ingredients of the cheating as defined under section
415 is- (1) deception of any person
(2) (a) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person; or
(i) to deliver any property to any person or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit, if he was not
so deceived which act or omission causes or likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation
or property.
10 Upon reconsideration of the allegations made
against the present applicant, none of the ingredients
required under Section 415, as discussed
hereinabove, are satisfied. At this stage, reference is
required to be made to the decision of the Apex
Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and
Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,
reported in 2024 (10) SCC 690, wherein it has been
Page 8 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
held that offences under Sections 406 and 420
cannot co-exist simultaneously. The relevant
observations read as under:
“35. This Court in its decision in S.W. Palanitkar &
Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2002) 1
SCC 241 expounded the difference in the ingredients
required for constituting an of offence of criminal
breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) viz-a-viz the
offence of cheating (Section 420). The relevant
observations read as under: –
“9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal
breach of trust are: (i) entrusting a person with
property or with any dominion over property, (ii)
that person entrusted (a) dishonestly
misappropriating or converting that property to his
own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of
that property or wilfully suffering any other person
so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching
the discharge of such trust.
10. The ingredients of an 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 (iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b),
the act of omission should be one which causes or
is likely to cause damage or harm to the person
induced in body, mind, reputation or property.”
36. What can be discerned from the above is that
Page 9 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406
IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific
ingredients.
In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust
(Section 406 IPC): –
1) There must be entrustment with person for
property or dominion over the property, and
2) The person entrusted: –
a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted property
to his own use, or
b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or
willfully suffers any other person so to do in
violation of:
i. any direction of law prescribing the method in
which the trust is discharged; orii. legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see:
S.W.P. Palanitkar (supra).
Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420
IPC, the essential ingredients are: –
1) deception of any person, either by making a false
or misleading representation or by other action or
by omission;
2) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person
to deliver any property, or
3) the consent that any persons shall retain any
property and finally intentionally inducing that
person to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit (see: Harmanpreet Singh
Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712 :
Page 10 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
(2009) Cr.L.J. 3462 (SC))
37. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea
i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention
must be present, and in the case of cheating it must
be there from the very beginning or inception.
38. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint
fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients
noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear
a serious misconception of law in the mind of the
police as well as the courts below, that if it is a
case of the complainant that offence of criminal
breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of IPC,
punishable under Section 406 of IPC, is committed
by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot
be said that the accused has also committed the
offence of cheating as defined and explained in
Section 415 of the IPC, punishable under Section
420 of the IPC.
39. Every act of breach of trust may not result in a
penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless
there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent
misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves
a civil wrong in respect of which the person may
seek his remedy for damages in civil courts but, any
breach of trust with a mens rea, gives rise to a
criminal prosecution as well. It has been held in
Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha &
Ors., reported in (1973) 2 SCC 823 as under:
“4. We have heard Mr. Maheshwari on behalf of
the appellant and are of the opinion that no case
has been made out against the respondents under
Section 420 Penal Code, 1860. For the purpose of
the present appeal, we would assume that the
various allegations of fact which have been made inPage 11 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
the complaint by the appellant are correct. Even
after making that allowance, we find that the
complaint does not disclose the commission of any
offence on the part of the respondents under Section
420 Penal Code, 1860. There is nothing in the
complaint to show that the respondents had
dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the
appellant parted with Rs. 35.000/- There is also
nothing to indicate that the respondents induced the
appellant to pay them Rs. 35,000/- by deceiving
him. It is further not the case of the appellant that
a representation was made, the respondents knew
the same to be false. The fact that the respondents
subsequently did not abide by their commitment
that they would show the appellant to be the
proprietor of Drang Transport Corporation and
would also render accounts to him in the month of
December might create civil liability on the
respondents for the offence of cheating.”
40. To put it in other words, the case of cheating
and dishonest intention starts with the very
inception of the transaction. But in the case of
criminal breach of trust, a person who comes into
possession of the movable property and receives it
legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his
own use against the terms of the contract, then the
question is, in a case like this, whether the
retention is with dishonest intention or not, whether
the retention involves criminal breach of trust or
only a civil liability would depend upon the facts of
each case.
41. The distinction between mere breach of contract
and the offence of criminal breach of trust and
cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating, the
intention of the accused at the time of inducement
should be looked into which may be judged by a
Page 12 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent
conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract
cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is
shown right from the beginning of the transaction
i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been
committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is
the gist of the offence.
42. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the
property must have been entrusted to the accused or
he must have dominion over it. The property in
respect of which the offence of breach of trust has
been committed must be either the property of some
person other than the accused or the beneficial
interest in or ownership’ of it must be of some
other person. The accused must hold that property
on trust of such other person. Although the offence,
i.e. the offence of breach of trust and cheating
involve dishonest intention, yet they are mutually
exclusive and different in basic concept.
43. There is a distinction between criminal breach
of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal
intention is necessary at the time of making a false
or misleading representation i.e., since inception. In
criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment
is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of
trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the
property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the
same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender
fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by
deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a
situation, both the offences cannot co-exist
simultaneously.
44. At the most, the court of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate could have issued process for the
Page 13 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC i.e.
cheating but in any circumstances no case of
criminal breach of trust is made out. The reason
being that indisputably there is no entrustment of
any property in the case at hand. It is not even the
case of the complainant that any property was
lawfully entrusted to the appellants and that the
same has been dishonestly misappropriated. The case
of the complainant is plain and simple. He says that
the price of the goods sold by him has not been
paid. Once there is a sale, Section 406 of the IPC
goes out of picture. According to the complainant,
the invoices raised by him were not cleared. No
case worth the name of cheating is also made out.
45. Even if the Magistrate would have issued
process for the offence punishable under Section 420
of the IPC, i.e., cheating the same would have been
liable to be quashed and set aside, as none of the
ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating are
disclosed from the materials on record.
46. It has been held in State of Gujarat v.
Jaswantlal Nathalal reported in (1968) 2 SCR 408,
“The term “entrusted” found in Section 405 IPC
governs not only the words “with the property”
immediately following it but also the words “or
with any dominion over the property” occurring
thereafter–see Velji Raghvaji Patel v. State of
Maharashtra [(1965) 2 SCR 429]. Before there can be
any entrustment there must be a trust meaning
thereby an obligation annexed to the ownership of
property and a confidence reposed in and accepted
by the owner or declared and accepted by him for
the benefit of another or of another and the owner.
But that does not mean that such an entrustment
need conform to all the technicalities of the law of
trust — see Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of
Bombay [1956 SCR 483]. The expressionPage 14 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
“entrustment” carries with it the implication that
the person handing over any property or on whose
behalf that property is handed over to another,
continues to be its owner. Further the person
handing over the property must have confidence in
the person taking the property so as to create a
fiduciary relationship between them. A mere
transaction of sale cannot amount to an
“entrustment”.
47. Similarly, in Central Bureau of Investigation,
SPE, SIU(X), New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries
Ltd., Calcutta reported in (1996) 5 SCC 591 this
Court held that the expression “entrusted with
property” used in Section 405 of the IPC connotes
that the property in respect of which criminal
breach of trust can be committed must necessarily
be the property of some person other than the
accused or that the beneficial interest in or
ownership thereof must be in the other person and
the offender must hold such property in trust for
such other person or for his benefit. The relevant
observations read as under: –
“27. In the instant case, a serious dispute has been
raised by the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties as to whether on the face of the
allegations, an offence of criminal breach of trust is
constituted or not. In our view, the expression
“entrusted with property” or “with any dominion
over property” has been used in a wide sense in
Section 405 IPC. Such expression includes all cases
in which goods are entrusted, that is, voluntarily
handed over for a specific purpose and dishonestly
disposed of in violation of law or in violation of
contract. The expression ‘entrusted’ appearing in
Section 405 IPC is not necessarily a term of law. It
has wide and different implications in differentPage 15 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
contexts. It is, however, necessary that the
ownership or beneficial interest in the ownership of
the property entrusted in respect of which offence is
alleged to have been committed must be in some
person other than the accused and the latter must
hold it on account of some person or in some way
for his benefit. The expression ‘trust’ in Section 405
IPC is a comprehensive expression and has been
used to denote various kinds of relationships like
the relationship of trustee and beneficiary, bailor
and bailee, master and servant, pledger and pledgee.
When some goods are hypothecated by a person to
another person, the ownership of the goods still
remains with the person who has hypothecated such
goods. The property in respect of which criminal
breach of trust can be committed must necessarily
be the property of some person other than the
accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership of
it must be in the other person and the offender
must hold such property in trust for such other
person or for his benefit. In a case of pledge, the
pledged article belongs to some other person but the
same is kept in trust by the pledgee. […]”
(Emphasis supplied)
48. The aforesaid exposition of law makes it clear
that there should be some entrustment of property
to the accused wherein the ownership is not
transferred to the accused. In case of sale of
movable property, although the payment may be
deferred yet the property in the goods passes on
delivery as per Sections 20 and 24 respectively of
the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
“20. Specific goods in a deliverable state. — Where
there is an unconditional contract for the sale of
specific goods in a deliverable state, the property in
the goods passes to the buyer when the contract isPage 16 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
made and it is immaterial whether the time of
payment of the price or the time of delivery of
goods, or both, is postponed.
Xxx xxx xxx
24. Goods sent on approval or “on sale or return”.
— When goods are delivered to the buyer on
approval or “on sale or return” or other similar
terms, the property therein passes to the buyer–
(a) when he signifies his approval or acceptance to
the seller or does any other act adopting the
transaction;
(b) if he does not signify his approval or acceptance
to the seller but retains the goods without giving
notice of rejection, then, if a time has been fixed
for the return of the goods on the expiration of such
time, and, if no time has been fixed, on the
expiration of a reasonable time.”
49. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any
doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the
property passes to the purchaser from the seller
when the goods are delivered. Once the property in
the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said
that the purchaser was entrusted with the property
of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there
cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus,
prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of
trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in
case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There
can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the
consideration amount, but no criminal case will be
maintainable for it. [See : Lalit Chaturvedi and
Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another : 2024
SCC OnLine SC 171 & Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd.
(MESCO Steel Ltd.) and Others v. State of
Page 17 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
Jharkhand and Another : 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar
301]
50. The case at hand falls in category No. 1 as laid
in Smt. Nagawwa (supra) referred to in para 7 of
this judgment.
51. If it is the case of the complainant that a
particular amount is due and payable to him then
he should have filed a civil suit for recovery of the
amount against the appellants herein. But he could
not have gone to the court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate by filing a complaint of cheating
and criminal breach of trust. It appears that till this
date, the complainant has not filed any civil suit for
recovery of the amount which according to him is
due and payable to him by the appellants. He seems
to have prima facie lost the period of limitation for
filing such a civil suit.
52. In such circumstances referred to above, the
continuation of the criminal proceeding would be
nothing but abuse of the process of law.”
11 Considering the aforesaid legal position, for an
offence under Section 406 of the IPC, the essential
requirement is entrustment of property and its
subsequent dishonest misappropriation. On the other
hand, for an offence punishable under Section 420 of
the IPC, it is necessary to establish cheating, i.e.,
deception by the accused and dishonest inducement
of the person deceived to deliver property. In cases
of criminal breach of trust, the property is initially
acquired lawfully or with consent, but is subsequently
Page 18 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
misappropriated. In contrast, in cases of cheating,
the property is obtained by deception from the very
inception. In the present case, the essential
ingredients of both the provisions are absent, and in
any case, the offences under Sections 406 and 420
cannot co-exist simultaneously.
12 It is also required to be noted that as per the FIR, the
period of offence is stated to be from 2012 to
23.08.2015 and the first informant has approached to
the police station on 06.02.2016. It is true that the
delay cannot be the sole ground for quashment of
the FIR however, along with the delay the allegation
which are made in the FIR even if taken as on their
face value that only suggested when on 23.08.2015
the complainant went along with his advocate to
Parsoda village for recovery of the amount of
Rs.5,03,000/- when the accused has denied to pay,
the impugned FIR was lodged after the delay of
almost six months. The applicant had also annexed
the copy of the notice issued to the complainant
calling to pay the amount of selling of crops of 71
agriculturists which also suggests that with a view to
avoid the said payment as a counterblast the FIR is
lodged. In that background, the continuation of
proceedings would nothing but gross abuse of
process of law. Continuation of proceedings would
Page 19 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
nothing but gross abuse of process. In that
background, the impugned FIR is required to be set
aside.
13This Court has referred to the decision of the Apex
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported
in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Apex Court
has laid down the guidelines governing the exercise
of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure which are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(i) 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.
Page 20 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii) 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.”
Page 21 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34460/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
14This case falls under the criteria (i) and (v) from the
case of Bhajan Lal (supra), therefore the
application deserves to be allowed.
15Resultantly, the present application is allowed. The
impugned FIR being I-C.R. No.13 of 2016 dated
06.02.2016 registered with Vijapur Police Station,
District Mehsana, as well as all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed
and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
Page 22 of 22
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 23:39:32 IST 2026
