The Allahabad High Court, in a recent judgment, quashed the criminal proceedings against Sanjeev Chaddha, who was accused of criminal breach of trust by his younger brother, Rajiv Chaddha. The court observed that the proceedings appeared to be a malicious attempt to exert pressure in a family dispute over an inheritance. The court also directed the complainant to pay Rs. 25,000 as a cost of litigation to the applicant, calling the conduct of the complainant akin to a “Kalyugi Bharat.”
Background of the Case
The case revolves around two brothers, Sanjeev Chaddha, the applicant, and Rajiv Chaddha, the complainant, who have been embroiled in a legal battle following the death of their father. The dispute centers on a sum of Rs. 2.20 lakh, which the complainant alleged was given to his elder brother for business purposes but was not returned. Additionally, there was contention over the withdrawal of money from a joint account and the validity of a will purportedly executed by their father.
The case originated from an FIR lodged by Rajiv Chaddha on November 12, 2017, at Kidwai Nagar Police Station, Kanpur Nagar, under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal breach of trust. Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on January 28, 2019, limited to the allegation concerning the non-return of Rs. 2.20 lakh. Other allegations were found to be baseless.
Key Legal Issues Involved
1. Entrustment and Misappropriation under Section 406 IPC:
The primary issue before the court was whether the charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC could be sustained. For an offense under Section 406, the court noted that there must be “entrustment” with property that has been dishonestly misappropriated or converted to the accused’s use. In the present case, the court found no evidence of entrustment or dishonest misappropriation.
2. Nature of the Dispute: Civil or Criminal?:
The court had to determine if the matter was criminal in nature or merely a civil dispute between two brothers. It was argued that the dispute was essentially over money and inheritance, which should be resolved in civil court.
3. Malicious Prosecution:
The court also examined whether the complaint was filed with mala fide intentions to harass and coerce the applicant.
Court’s Decision and Observations
The judgment was delivered by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, who observed that the complainant’s allegations did not satisfy the essential elements of Section 406 IPC. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of U.P. and Another (2023) 3 SCC 423, which clarified that to attract Section 405 of the IPC, there must be clear evidence of entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, and conversion of property.
The court stated:
“On the basis of material, none of the ingredients of the offense of criminal breach of trust is made out. The proceedings appear to be initiated by the complainant only to put pressure on his elder brother to negotiate since there is a Will wherein the complainant is not a beneficiary.”
Further, Justice Shamshery observed that the conduct of the complainant was an attempt to weaponize the legal system for personal vendetta, describing the complainant’s actions as those of a “Kalyugi Bharat,” a stark contrast to the revered Bharat from Hindu mythology who showed respect and loyalty towards his elder brother.
The court concluded:
“In the absence of factual allegations which satisfy the ingredients of the offense under Section 405 IPC, a mere dispute on monetary demand does not attract criminal prosecution under Section 406 IPC. The entire proceedings are a creature of malafides and were initiated only to harass the applicant by giving a cloak of a criminal case to a dispute which was essentially of a civil nature.”
The High Court quashed the charge-sheet dated January 28, 2019, and the cognizance and summoning order dated February 8, 2019, issued by the Court of A.C.M.M., Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar. The court also ordered the complainant to pay Rs. 25,000 as the cost of litigation to the applicant within four weeks, stating that the litigation was an abuse of the judicial process.
Case Details
– Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 1488 of 2020
– Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
– Applicant: Sanjeev Chaddha
– Opposite Party: State of Uttar Pradesh and Rajiv Chaddha
– Counsel for Applicant: Avanish Kumar Shukla, Mithilesh Kumar Shukla
– Counsel for Opposite Party: Dinesh Kumar Singh, G.A.; Rajiv Chaddha (in person)
