• Binod Kumar Vs. State of Bihar

  • Head Notes

    • Quashing of proceedings- Every Breach Of Contract Is Not A Criminal Breach Of Contract- Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 405, 406 & 120-B - Scope, lack of ingredients of offences in complaint, effect of - Case of respondent No.2 that contract was entered into between him and K.S.S. College for construction of building of College - Termination of contract - Aggrieved by non-payment of entire amount, respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint for criminal breach of trust, alleging that an amount was not paid to him and that amount was utilized by appellants in some other work - Quashing petition by appellant - Held, to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by appellants - It must also be shown that appellants dishonestly disposed of same in some way or dishonestly retained same - Mere fact that appellants did not pay money to complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust - Criminal proceedings are not a short cut for other remedies - Since no case of criminal breach of trust or dishonest intention of inducement is made out and essential ingredients of Sections 405/420 IPC are missing, prosecution of appellants quashed - Appeal allowed - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 (Para 18, 19 & 20)- Head Notes-2- Offence of criminal breach of trust - Parts of - Discussed (Para 16)- HELD: Looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilized the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust (Para 18)- Further held- Misappropriation done in a dishonest manner. There are two distinct parts of the said offence. The first involves the fact of entrustment, wherein an obligation arises in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired. The second part deals with misappropriation which should be contrary to the terms of the obligation which is created (Para 16)- Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar, Crl. Appeal No. 2327/2014 , Judgment Dated-30/10/2014, Bench- T.S. Thakur, J.: R. Banumathi, JJ, Citations- 2014(10) SCC 663: 2014(12) JT 286: 2014(12) SCALE 465: 2014(8) Supreme 112: 2014(9) SLT 684: 2014(4) Crimes 305(SC): 2015(1) JCC 664.
Live2Support.com
All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove