On Friday, the Supreme Court expressed dismay that Indian courts have struggled to grasp the distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating, despite over 162 years of penal law. In a critical observation, the bench, consisting of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized the need for proper legal training for police to understand these crucial differences, highlighting that it was “very sad” that the nuances remain misunderstood.
The court’s remarks came during a decision that overturned an Allahabad High Court ruling from April, which had refused to quash a trial court’s summoning order in a case against the Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd and others. The case involved allegations of non-payment for horse feed supplied by a firm to the club.
Justice Pardiwala criticized the mechanical registration of FIRs for both offences based merely on allegations of dishonesty or fraud, without careful consideration of the specific legal elements involved. “Both offences are independent and distinct. The two offences cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are antithetical to each other,” the bench declared.*
The Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was introduced during the British rule in 1862, was recently replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on July 1, 2024. The court pointed out that the continuing confusion over these two distinct crimes underscores a significant challenge in the judicial understanding and application of the law.
The Supreme Court also noted that when handling private complaints, magistrates must meticulously examine the allegations to determine if they truly constitute either cheating or criminal breach of trust. Similarly, the police are tasked with carefully evaluating whether the allegations in an FIR meet the criteria for these offences.
In reversing the high court’s decision, the Supreme Court not only quashed the trial court’s order but also directed that a copy of its verdict be sent to the principal secretaries of the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of Home Affairs. This move underscores the court’s intent to rectify legal misunderstandings and ensure that summonses are not issued without careful judicial consideration.
Also Read
Highlighting the seriousness of issuing summons in criminal cases, the bench added, “The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.”
