The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 406/420 IPC, holding that the complaint failed to establish essential ingredients. Allegations did not demonstrate dishonest inducement for cheating nor fraudulent misappropriation for criminal breach of trust. The Court emphasized that criminal law cannot be used to settle civil disputes or for vindictive prosecution.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, Inder Chand Bagri, and four others, including the complainant-respondent No. 1 Jagadish Prasad Bagri, formed a partnership firm in 1976. The appellant contributed his land to the firm for constructing godowns, which were leased to the Food Corporation of India. A supplementary agreement in 1981 permitted the appellant to use the land for his benefit, stipulating it would revert to him after the lease ended in 1993. The firm was dissolved in 1997, transferring all assets to the appellant as his sole proprietorship. In 2011, the appellant sold the land to his nephew. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a civil suit to set aside the sale and also initiated a criminal complaint in 2013, alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Magistrate took cognizance, but the High Court refused to quash proceedings against the appellant. The Supreme Court, on appeal, examined whether the complaint made out a prima facie case for the alleged offences.
Procedural History:
The criminal complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup in 2013. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons in 2014. The appellant approached the Gauhati High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings, which was dismissed in 2018. The Supreme Court, upon granting leave, allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Takes Charge: Major Order to Save Rajasthan’s Polluted Rivers
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the allegations in the complaint failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. For cheating, there was no material to show a fraudulent or dishonest intention by the appellant at the inception of the partnership. For criminal breach of trust, there was no evidence of dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property, as the supplementary agreement clearly stipulated the property’s reversion to the appellant. The Court held that the criminal proceedings, initiated when a civil suit was already pending on the same subject, appeared to be an abuse of the legal process for settling a civil dispute.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. Consequently, the criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 3230c of 2013 pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate were quashed against the appellant-accused, Inder Chand Bagri.
Case Details:
Case Title: Inder Chand Bagri vs. Jagadish Prasad Bagri & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1350 Criminal Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 5000 of 2025 Date of Judgement: November 24, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
Download The Judgement Here