AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pramod Kumar Agrawal , J
This is the first application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.792/2025 at Police Station Damoh Dehat, District Damoh (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 318(4), 316(5) & 316(2) of B.N.S.
As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the applicants is that they committed cheating with the complainant by not making the payment of the foodgrain material purchased by them. Therefore, the offence has been registered against the present applicants under the aforesaid section.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in the F.I.R., there is allegation that the complainant has sold the material amounting to Rs.18,94,87,980/- to the applicants and they are not paying the amount of said material. This is a case of civil dispute and has been given color as a criminal case. It is further submitted that in this case there is no ingredients of criminal breach of trust. The complainant himself admitted that Rs.7,15,00,223/- has been received by him, which itself shows that the applicants and the complainant both were trading since last year for which payments were received from time to time. It is further submitted that the complainant in his objection first time stated that ledger, which is provided to him by the applicants does not reflect any payment due to three firms of the complainant but that allegation is baseless. Copy of the ledger which is annexed with the objection is having no seal and signature of the applicants. The applicants have never stated that the material was not received by them and they are ready to pay the amount. This is the dispute of settlement of the amount and they are ready to settle the same. This case has been registered only to recover the amount. It is submitted that under the pressure, the agreement was executed, which is not binding on the applicant. The complainant has sold the paddy and the applicants have purchased the same, therefore it cannot be said that purchaser was entrusted with the property of sellor. and without entrustment of the property, there cannot be a criminal breach of trust. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the decisions of Apex Court in (2024) 10 SCC 690 (Delhi Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) &, Para 49 of said decision is reproduced below :-
"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."
Learned counsel has also placed reliance on decision of Apex Court in (2024) 13 SCC 614 (Jay Shri & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan), Para 3 of said decision is reproduced below:-
"3. Prima facie, in our opinion, mere breach of contract does not amount to an offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"), unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
On the other hand, learned counsel for State as well as objector have opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and have submitted that the complainant is the proprietor of firm. The firm of applicants has placed the purchase order to the complainant's firm. The grain was dispatched from the firm of complainant in 396 vehicles, which was received by the applicants. The applicants have withheld the payments of foodgrains. The complainant visited the office of applicants several times and in August, 2025 the complainant again went to the office of accused where the applicants gave ledger statements. In that ledger, the applicants intentionally did not show the receipts of many goods, which was duly received by him, which clearly shows the intention of applicants. It is not mere civil dispute because the applicants have no intention of making payment of foodgrains. The applicants have deliberately misrepresented the facts. Such conduct constitutes the offence of cheating and demonstrate a clear mens rea to defraud. The applicants have not filed any Laboratory Test report to show that the supplied foodgrains is of inferior quality.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
In this matter, it is not disputed that the transactions between both the parties arises out of sale of foodgrains items by the complainant to the applicants and non payment of balance consideration. It is also not disputed that subsequently both the parties executed an agreement whereby the applicants agreed to pay the amount in installments. At this stage, the Court is not required to adjudicate the validity of the said agreement or the allegation that it was executed under the pressure or coercion. This question can be decided after taking evidence during trial. However, the existence of agreement prima facie indidates that the dispute essentially relates to commercial transactions involving the payment of money regarding goods supplied to the applicants. The clause in the agreement restraining the applicants from filing petition for quashment does not bar them from seeking anticipatory bail as the right to seek bail is statutory and legal right and cannot be restrained by the mutual agreement.
Considering the nature of allegations, commercial and civil character of dispute, without commenting anything on the merits of the case. this Court finds it appropriate to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. It is directed that if the applicants is arrested by the police then they shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority.
Applicants shall abide by the following conditions under Section 480 (2) of B.N.S.S.:-
(a) Applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;
(b) They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to complainant or witnesses;
(c) They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
(d) They shall not commit similar offence, of which, they are accused or suspected.
(e) They will further abide by the condition enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 480 of the B.N.S.S.
Certified copy as per rules.