Criminal Law Can't Be Used For 'Recovery Of Money' Unless Offence Of Cheating/ Criminal Breach Of Trust Is Established: Karnataka High Court
 

Case Title: AMIT GARG v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4856 OF 2021)

Court: Karnataka High Court

Judge: Justice M Nagaprasanna (Single-Judge Bench)

---

Case Background:

In this case, Amit Garg filed a petition to quash proceedings initiated against him under sections 419 and 420 of the IPC and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

---

Petitioner's Contention:

- The petitioner argued that the issue was contractual and there was no cheating or dishonest intention on his part.

- Claimed that the dispute was within the realm of a contract.

---

Complainant's Counter-Argument:

- The complainant countered that, although the dispute was contractual, the petitioner had a dishonest intention to cheat from the inception of the contract.

- Alleged that the consignment of masks supplied by the petitioner was of poor quality.

---

Judgment Highlights:

      1. Reference to Supreme Court Judgment:

   - The High Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Sushil Sethi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh.

   - The apex court's judgment discussed the interplay between contract and cheating.

 

       2. Criminal Law in Motion:

   - The court observed that initiating criminal proceedings for both breach of contract and recovery of money could lead to harassment and a miscarriage of justice.

   - Citing Section 415 of the IPC, the court emphasized that cheating involves inducing a person to deliver property by deceit, which was not present in this case.

 

3. Quashing of Proceedings:

   - The court, using its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

   - Stated that the continuation of proceedings would result in harassment and a miscarriage of justice.

 

4. Sections 66C and 66D of IT Act:

   - The court criticized the inclusion of Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act.

   - Described these inclusions as "reckless" since the facts presented did not remotely touch upon these sections.

---

Conclusion:

The Karnataka High Court concluded that the case did not involve cheating, the offense under Section 419 of the IPC was not applicable, and the inclusion of certain sections of the Information Technology Act was unjustified. The court exercised its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings, preventing potential harassment and ensuring justice in the matter.

“Unlock the Potential of Legal Expertise with LegallMantra.net - Your Trusted Legal Consultancy Partner”

 

Article Compiled by:-

Mayank Garg

(LegalMantra.net Team)

+91 9582627751

Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this material in spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition In no event the author shall be liable for any direct indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from or arising out of or in connection with the use of this information Many sources have been considered including Newspapers, Journals, Bare Acts, Case Materials , Charted Secretary, Research Papers etc.

Print