This article has been written by B.Pooja, a 3rd year student pursuing BA. LLB(Hons) from SRM University.
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SOMJEET MALLICK V. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS
PETITIONER – SOMJEET MALLICK
Vs.
RESPONDENT – STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS
- CITATION – (SC) 797
- DATE OF JUDGEMENT – OCTOBER 14, 2024
- CORAM – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISHRA
INTRODUCTION:
It is a criminal appeal in the Supreme Court of India arising out of a case of dispute over non-payment of rent and malafide conduct in relation to leasing of a truck. In the instant case, Somjeet Mallick is an appellant who had filed complaints against the respondents of receiving the initial rent on account from them but then did not pay the rent and in fact, further wrongfully detained the truck. It is in such a situation wherein the High Court quashed the FIR and consequent criminal proceedings, against which this appeal is before it.
FACTS:
On July 10, 2014, the appellant leased a truck (Trailer No. NL 01K 1250) to the accused at a monthly rent of ₹33,000 excluding the salary of the driver and helper. The period of rental was July 14, 2014 to March 31, 2016.
After making TDS, he used to pay rent for one month only and stopped. An arrears of ₹12,49,780 arose in this case. The complainant, pleading and promising repeatedly failed in his task as the respondent neither paid the arrears nor returned the truck.
In her complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) ordered an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). She got a case registered. Since the accused did not appear before her after issuance of a notice under Section 41A CrPC, a non-bailable warrant (NBW) was issued against her on June 30, 2017. In its defence, the accused preferred a petition under Section 482 CrPC for the quashing of the FIR and proceedings, claiming that no criminal offense was made out. The High Court, vide order dated February 1, 2024, ordered in their favour, quashing the proceedings. The High Court advised the appellant to seek civil remedies for recovery of rent.
ISSUES:
- Was the High Court right in quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings without going through the entire evidence?
- Whether the acts of the accused constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating, or are only a basis for a civil action.
- Whether there was prima facie evidence of the alleged dishonesty or fraudulent intent of the accused?
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT:
The plea of the appellant was that the High Court had dismissed the complaint without giving sufficient hearing to the appellant. The accused did not vacate possession of the truck on receiving assurance and continued to hold possession without paying rent for many months, thereby displaying dishonest intention, rendering to “the case for criminal breach of trust and cheating.”[1]
As charge sheet was already filed, the appellant said the High Court should have scrutinized the evidence collected by the investigating agency instead of quashing the proceedings.
The disappearance of the truck invited an inference of possible misappropriation which could itself amount to criminal breach of trust.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT:
The respondents pleaded that it was a civil matter since it was essentially a rent dispute without there being proof of mens rea or criminal breach of trust. The accused pleaded that an FIR does not mention what kind of criminal breach involved the misappropriation of the truck which has been considered essential to base the criminal liability.
They pleaded that this act of recovery of the initial month’s rent shows an issue of good faith where subsequent non-payment of rents could be dealt with as a matter of civil action.
COURT’S REASONING:
The Supreme Court also observed that criminal intent is required for the criminal conviction of sections 406 criminal breach of trust and section 420 cheating of the IPC. The Court further held that an act of not paying rent for a long period but holding the property can be regarded with a dishonest intention and calls for investigation.
The Court of Law observed that FIRs do not necessarily have to provide all the minute details. They are just required to provide prima facie evidence. It further argued that the High Court should have looked at the evidence gathered while making the investigation before the criminal proceeding was dismissed.
The Supreme Court further held that having given a charge sheet by the police without any stay on investigation, the High Court ought not to have concluded without such care in the scrutiny of those materials that no offense has been committed.
The Court also stressed that an FIR is merely the first step in a process of investigation and is not required to include therein all allegations. If allegations regarding misbehaviour were true, then an offense would also be made out. So premature quashing was not appropriate.
JUDGMENT:
The High Court’s judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court while the case was sent for the fresh decision in that. All the evidence from the collected investigation was also considered, while deciding the correctness of criminal proceedings. As a matter of fact, both sides had the right to submit the claims in a criminal court as well as civil forum on the merits of evidence.
ANALYSIS:
This case throws up the issue of the distinction between a civil dispute, such as non-payment of rent, and criminal conduct, like dishonest retention or misappropriation of property. It clarified the Supreme Court position that some elements of behaviour, when coupled with proof of dishonesty, can form the basis of a criminal case even in a dispute which has civil features.
The judgment drives home once again the need for courts to consider all evidence, more particularly where a charge sheet has been filed. Justice will be thwarted if the FIR is quashed before all evidence can be collected since a true investigation is likely to bring matters to an early closure. The mens rea principle of the Court is that criminal liability is often dependent on the intent of the accused. Retaining property without making payment can be construed as criminal intent, and thus there is a need to investigate.
CONCLUSION:
The judgment of the Supreme Court repeats that courts should be cautious in quashing criminal proceedings solely based on the contents of an FIR. The ruling puts emphasis on all evidence such as police reports and charge sheets before a person concludes whether the case is criminal in nature or civil. The case is remitted to the High Court for consideration of amassed evidence, so far to an informed judgment on if the criminal process should continue. This decision underlines a requirement to balance procedural due process rights with the rights of the complainant in more complex cases that have mixed elements of civil and criminal action.
[1] https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/complaint-against-car-showroom/article7661452.ece
