RAJESH BAJAJ Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS
K.T.THOMAS, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI
1999 AIR 1216, 1999( 1 )SCR1012, 1999( 3 )SCC 259, 1999( 1 )SCALE697 , 1999( 2 )JT 112
Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that he should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not needed at this stage. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. [1016-A-C] State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,  Supp. 1 SCC 335, relied on. 2. The facts narrated in the complaint would as well reveal a commer-cial transaction or money transaction but that is hardly a reason for holding that offence of cheating would elude from such transactions. It is the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in discerning whether an offence was committed or not. [1016-F] 3. The hyper-technical approach adopted by the High Court for test-ing ingredients under Section 415 IPC may be justified during trial but certainly not during the stage of investigation. [1017-C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 1999.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 482-Quashing of criminal complaint- Complainant induced to enter into a commercial transaction- Payment as per the invoice was not made after delivery of goods-Complaint lodged containing all relevant facts-High Court quashed the complaint hold-ing it did not disclose offence of cheating and that it was purely a commercial transaction where payment assured was not made-On appeal Held, if factual foundation is laid then complaint need not reproduce ingredients of offence alleged-Court should not hasten to quash proceedings at investigation stage-Quashing of complaint on ground that it disclosed only a commercial transaction not justified-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 415 and 420. Constitution of India-Article 226-Quashing of criminal Com-plaint- Meticulous scrutiny of all ingredients of offence not needed-Hyper- technical approach adopted by court may be justified during trial but not during the stage of investigation-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 415 and 420. The appellant belongs to a company manufacturing and exporting garments. Respondent No. 5 approached him as a representative of a German company to purchase garments for export. He induced the appel-lant to believe that payments shall be made on receiving the invoice. The goods were delivered along with the invoices by the appellant, but only a part of the payment due was received. Respondent agreed under a second understanding reached between the parties to pay the amount due. This understanding was also not honoured. The appellant filed a complaint stating all the relevant facts and also alleged that the respondent had duped many other manufacturers through this modus operandi. High Court quashed the FIR as it found that the complaint did not disclose commission of any offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 I.P.C., that there was nothing to indicate a dishonest or fraudulent intention and that it was purely a commercial transaction where balance amount of the goods received was not paid as per the assurance made. Hence this appeal by the complaint.
PETITIONER: RAJESH BAJAJ Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/03/1999 BENCH: K.T.Thomas, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri JUDGMENT: Thomas J. Leave granted. Appellant lodged an FIR with the police for the offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR on the premise that the complaint did not disclose the offence. The Division Bench reminded themselves that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection for quashing criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, learned judges found that the case on hand could not pass the test laid down by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335]. The appellant is obviously aggrieved by the aforesaid course of action adopted by the High Court and hence he filed the special leave petition. In the complaint filed by the appellant before the police, on the strength of which the FIR was prepared, the following averments, inter alia, were made. Appellant belongs to a company (M/s Passion Apparel Private Limited) which manufactures and exports Readymade garments. On 15.11.1994 fifth respondent (Gagan Kishore Srivastava) Managing Director of M/s Avren Junge Mode Gumbh Haus Der Model approached the complainant for purchase of Readymade garments of various kinds and induced the appellant to believe that 5th respondent would pay the price of the said goods on receiving the invoice. Such payment was promised to be made within fifteen days from the date of invoice of the goods which complainant would despatch to Germany. Appellant believed the aforesaid representation as true and on that belief he despatched goods worth 4,46,597.25 D.M. (Deutsch Marks). In March/April 1995 respondent on receipt of 37 different invoices got the goods released and sold them to others. But the respondent paid only a sum of 1,15,194 D.M. Appellant further alleged in the complaint that respondent induced him to believe that he is a genuine dealer, but actually his intentions were not clear.