Criminal Prosecution Quashed for Dispute of Civil Nature Lacking Evidence of Dishonest Misappropriation or Monetary Transaction

The petitioner, an advocate practicing in Varanasi, challenged a cognizance order dated 07.07.2022 passed under Section 406 of the IPC.

The complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) alleged that the petitioner introduced him to a landowner, Ram Navmi Mishra, and induced him to pay Rs. 25,18,000 for a land deal that subsequently appeared disputed.

The petitioner contended that he was merely the landowner's counsel in a pending title suit and that no written agreement or objective evidence of cash transactions existed.

Prior to the complaint, the petitioner had lodged an FIR (No. 407/2021) against the complainant following an altercation regarding the withdrawal of the said title suit.

1. Whether the dispute between the parties is primarily civil in nature, thereby making the criminal prosecution for breach of trust unsustainable.

2. Whether there was sufficient objective material to sustain the charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner.

Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code regarding criminal breach of trust.

Precedent established in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736, which cautions against the growing tendency of using criminal law as a tool to settle disputes that are essentially civil in nature.

The necessity of objective evidence in financial transactions to establish a prima facie case in criminal proceedings.

The court reasoned that the petitioner was the advocate for the landowner, not the owner himself, and had no personal legal interest in the property.

It noted a total lack of objective material, such as bank records or written instruments, to corroborate the allegation that the petitioner received any money; a specific bank transaction of Rs. 2,18,000 was actually linked to a third party's account.

The court observed that the petitioner had filed a criminal case against the complainant prior to the complaint being lodged, suggesting the present case was retaliatory.

The court held that since no civil suit for specific performance or legal notice was initiated by the complainant, the sudden recourse to criminal law for a land-related monetary dispute was an abuse of process.

The petition was allowed, and the cognizance order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IXth, Patna in Complaint Case No. 153(C) of 2022 was quashed insofar as it related to the petitioner.