Case Details: Ashok Kumar Jain Versus State of Gujarat (2025) 30 Centax 103 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pankaj Mithal & S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.
- Shri P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. & Ms Natasha Dalmia, AOR, for the petitioner.
- Ms Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms Neha Singh, Advs. & Ms Swati Ghildiyal, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant is a director of a foreign-based company. The informant/complainant, an Indian businessman without an import-export license, was approached by the appellant to engage in a business involving the export of goods. As the complainant could not export directly, the appellant suggested that the goods be exported through a third-party firm, Oswal Overseas, which held a valid import-export license. The complainant agreed to this arrangement, under which the goods would be exported through Oswal Overseas to the appellant’s foreign company, with payment to be made within 60 to 90 days. Acting on this understanding, the complainant shipped goods of substantial value via Oswal Overseas. In each transaction, Oswal Overseas signed and stamped the complainant’s invoices and provided container and customs clearance documentation.
The invoices clearly named Oswal Overseas as the exporter and the appellant’s company as the consignee. A portion of the goods was not shipped due to logistical issues, and Oswal Overseas refunded the corresponding amount to the complainant. For the remaining goods, the complainant alleged that no payment was received despite repeated requests and personal follow-ups with the appellant. Thereafter, the complainant filed an FIR against the appellant under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust. The appellant challenged the FIR before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, since in the true copies of invoices and payment receipts the accused was shown only as the consignee and Oswal Overseas as the exporter, the entrustment of export goods was to be considered as having been made by the complainant to Oswal Overseas and not to the accused. It further observed that the unpaid sale price of the exported goods was contractually agreed to be debited to the account of Oswal Overseas. In light of these documentary facts, the Court held that the filing of the FIR alleging that the accused had an intention to cheat and commit breach of trust was contrary to record. It was evident that a mere civil dispute had been artificially presented as a criminal offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
The complainant’s reliance on an oral inducement was insufficient to override the express documentary terms through which the final entrustment and obligations were established. The Court concluded that the non-payment of the sale price could at best be treated as a civil dispute between the accused and Oswal Overseas, and not an offence under criminal law. Continuation of the FIR proceedings against the accused would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the FIR was quashed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat — R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 11506 of 2017, decided on 15-12-2021 by Gujarat High Court — Reversed [Paras 2, 5, 17]
List of Cases Cited
- A.M. Mohan v. State — 2024 INSC 233 — Relied on [Paras 10, 14]
- Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar — (2000) 4 SCC 168 — Relied on [Paras 9.2, 14]
- Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh — (2021) 9 SCC 35 — Referred [Paras 8.2, 14]
- Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi — (2007) 12 SCC 369 — Referred [Paras 8.3, 14]
- Prof. P.K. Vijayasarathy and Anr v. Sudha Seetharam — (2019) 16 SCC 739 — Relied on [Para 9.3, 14]
- Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan — 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311 — Relied on [Paras 9, 14]
- Rashmoi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada — (1997) 2 SCC 397 — Relied on [Paras 9.1, 14]
- State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty — (2022) 16 SCC 703 — Referred [Paras 8.1, 14]
