Court Upholds Prima Facie Evidence, Discharges Accused in Landmark Cheating and Breach of Trust Case - Advocate Aditya Pratap represented the accused

Civil and Commercial Law General Civil Suits and Litigation

Posted by: Aditya Pratap Law Offices on 2024-07-19

---

In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Court has allowed the discharge of the accused of cheating and breach of trust case under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 (i.e. Magistrate after reviewing the Police report and other necessary documents concludes that the charges framed against the accused are baseless and he may discharge the accused after recording the reasons for doing so.) The decision has given clear importance to prima facie evidence in criminal proceedings and highlights the boundary between civil and criminal cases.

The case started when the complainant lodged an FIR on 07th January 2019 alleging that the accused introduced him to a Russian Company and its director.

In the Complaint, it was mentioned that an agreement was made on 08th December 2016 for the registration of a nutrition product for which a total payment of $59,000 was made. The Complainant claimed that only two installments of $39,663 were transferred to the company’s account.

After the accused resigned from the Company on 14th November 2017 and departed to Russia he failed to give the receipts regarding the transfer of the amount and any updates regarding the registration process. Therefore, the Complainant suspects foul play and in his further investigation he found that the company does not receive any payment. Thus an FIR was filed against the accused under Section 406 (Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Accused in his defense which is pleaded by Advocate Aditya Pratap alleged that he is merely an employee of the Company and not a party to the contract which was between Complainant and Company. Also, the charge sheet did not substantiate any offense under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code which is the absence of entrustment by the Complainant Company.  

There is no sufficient evidence of deception and the complaint is filed on the baseless grounds. The defense regarding the late filing of the FIR and the suit is civil and not a criminal offense.

The Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the discharge application pleaded by the accused claiming that there are prima facie materials against the accused that justify the charges. Also, the accusations are not groundless and warrant a trial to decide the suit.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The Hon’ble Court in its order dated 02nd July 2022 held that:

 The accused was just an employee of the Company and not a party to the contract and the transactions occurred in Russia involving a Foreign Company. All the payments are made to the Company and not to the accused with no evidence of payment to the accused.There is insufficient evidence to decide the case and the suit is civil, not criminal.

 The Court concludes that the grounds are baseless with no sufficient evidence against the accused. And a delay in filing the FIR has weakened the prosecution’s case.

As per the above-discussed facts and issues, Metropolitan Magistrate concludes that the complaint against the accused is baseless hence he is discharged from the case and released from the criminal proceedings. It is also mentioned by the court that there should be clear and prima facie evidence to justify the accusation.

 

In the given case the importance of the Judiciary’s role in distinguishing between criminal and civil matters is also seen.  And it sets a remarkable example of timely justice.