Held, Thus, criminal breach of trust would, inter alia, mean using or disposing of the property by a person who is entrusted with or otherwise has dominion. Such an act must not only be done dishonestly, but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract express or implied relating to carrying out the trust. However, in the instant case, materials on record fail to satisfy the ingredients of Section 405 of the IPC. The complaint does not directly refer to the ingredients of Section 405 of the IPC and does not state how and in what manner, on facts, the requirements are satisfied. Para 16-17
In order to apply Section 420 of the IPC, namely cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, the ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC have to be satisfied. To constitute an offence of cheating under Section 415 of the IPC, a person should be induced, either fraudulently or dishonestly, to deliver any property to any person, or consent that any person shall retain any property. In the present case, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 read with Section 415 of the IPC are absent. The pre- summoning evidence does not disclose and establish the essential ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC. Para 18 and Para 20
Section 471 of the IPC is also not attracted. This Section is applicable when a person fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record, which he knows or has reasons to believe to be a forged document or electronic record. Further, to constitute the offence under Section 471 of the IPC, it has to be proven that the document was “forged” in terms of Section 470, and “false” in terms of Section 464 IPC. Para 21. It is argued that had respondent no. 2 – complainant supplied the goods, instead of GST, VAT as applicable in Delhi would have been levied, as respondent no. 2 – complainant was based in Delhi. This argument is rather fanciful and does not impress us to justify summoning for the offence under Section 471 of the IPC. Besides, the assertion is not to be found in the complaint, and cannot be predicated on the pre-summoning evidence. Para 25
Held, We are, therefore, of the opinion that the assertions made in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence led by respondent no. 2 – complainant fail to establish the conditions and incidence of the penal liability set out under Sections 405, 420, and 471 of the IPC, as the allegations pertain to alleged breach of contractual obligations. Para 28.
Further Held, We must also observe that the High Court, while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, failed to take due notice that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be initiated when it is manifest that these proceedings have been initiated with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the opposite side due to private or personal grudge. Para 34
[Deepak Gaba v. State of U.P., (2023) 3 SCC 423]