In a notable legal development, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the decision regarding the Truck Rental Dispute case, where the High Court’s ruling was challenged. This case revolves around a dispute over the non-payment of rent for a truck rental arrangement. The Supreme Court’s judgment is set to have far-reaching implications on the interpretation of criminal breach of trust and the importance of thorough investigations in legal proceedings.
Facts
- An application under Section 156(3) CrPC was filed by the original complainant alleging that the accused offered to take his Truck on monthly rent but failed to pay rent despite false assurances.
- The original complainant argued that the application is for the recovery of rent and can be pursued through civil proceedings.
- CJM directed police to institute a case on the application under Section 156(3) CrPC.
- The High Court quashed the cognizance taken and further proceedings in connection with the case, leading to the appellant’s appeal.
- Accused respondents 2 and 3 sought to include a prayer to quash the cognizance order
- High Court quashed the order of cognizance and all further proceedings in the case
- High Court left it open to the original complainant to take recourse to civil remedies
- The High Court’s reasoning included lack of entrustment allegation in the FIR, hence Section 406 IPC offense was not made out
- The High Court failed to consider the unknown whereabouts of the Truck
- Non-return of the Truck could indicate misappropriation or disposal in violation of the agreement, suggesting a criminal breach of trust offense
Also Read: Land Acquisition Dispute: Setting Aside High Court’s Order
Issue
- The High Court did not consider the materials collected during the investigation before reaching a conclusion on whether the offence had been committed or not.
- The submission of the charge sheet indicates that there is significant evidence that should have been taken into account.
- It is essential for the court to base its decision on all available materials and facts, especially in criminal cases where the determination of guilt is crucial.
Also Read: In Re: Arbitration Petition No 19 of 2024
Arguments
- The FIR did not disclose commission of any offence, justifying the High Court’s decision to quash the entire proceeding.
- No specific allegation in the FIR regarding disposal or misappropriation of the Truck, hence no case of criminal breach of trust was made out.
- The offence of cheating is not established as dishonest intention from the beginning is not disclosed in the FIR.
- The High Court was within its rights to quash the cognizance order and further proceedings.
Also Read: Important Judgment on Child Pornography Laws: Harish v. State of India
Analysis
- Allegations in the FIR or police report to be taken at face value to determine if a prima facie case is made for investigation or proceeding.
- Mens rea is essential unless otherwise stated by the penal statute.
- High Court should consider materials collected during investigation before quashing FIR.
- If FIR is quashed at inception, it hampers legitimate investigation and may prevent finding of criminal breach of trust if accused dishonestly disposed of the Truck.
- Existence of mens rea is a matter of fact inferred from the act and surrounding circumstances.
- Investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR if it alleges a dishonest conduct supported by materials.
- The Court must review materials submitted in support of the police report before deciding to quash FIR and related proceedings.
- An FIR is not an exhaustive list of accusations and a prima facie case of dishonest intention by the accused warrants investigation prior to discharge.
Decision
- All contentions and pleas are kept open for the parties to urge before the High Court.
- Pending application(s) stand disposed of.
- The quashing petition will be restored to its original number for decision afresh by the High Court.
- The High Court is to decide the quashing petition again in accordance with the law and the provided observations.
- The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh decision on the quashing petition.
- The High Court’s impugned order is set aside.
- The appeal is allowed.
Case Title: SOMJEET MALLICK Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND (2024 INSC 772)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-004190-004190 – 2024
