Summary and Analysis of Paramjeet Singh & Anr vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr 2025 INSC 1118

1. Heading of the Judgment

Paramjeet Singh & Anr. vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1118
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan
Nature of Proceedings: Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3415 of 2024 and a connected Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 217 of 2025.

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily interprets and applies the following legal provisions:

• Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

• Section 120B of the IPC: Punishment for criminal conspiracy.

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Inherent powers of the High Court to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

3. Basic Case Details

• Parties:
  Appellants/Petitioners: Paramjeet Singh and his brother Sarabjit Singh, proprietors of stone crusher businesses.
  Respondents: The State of Himachal Pradesh and Kushal K. Rana (Complainant), proprietor of M/s Soma Stone Crusher.

• Origin of the Case: The appellants approached the Supreme Court challenging an order dated 02.01.2024 from the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The High Court had dismissed their petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against them.

• Core Allegation: The complainant alleged that the appellants cheated him by supplying a stone crusher machine that was underweight and underperforming compared to the agreed specifications, causing him a loss.

• Charges: FIR No. 11/2023 was registered under Sections 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

• Key Fact: The FIR was lodged in February 2023 concerning a business transaction and agreement that took place in December 2017, resulting in a delay of over five years.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the writ petition, quashing the FIR and all ensuing proceedings. The Court's reasoning is a detailed application of the legal principles governing the offence of cheating and the misuse of the criminal justice system.

A. The Core Legal Principle: Distinguishing Cheating from Breach of Contract

The entire judgment hinges on a fundamental legal distinction: not every breach of contract amounts to the criminal offence of cheating.

The Court relied heavily on its own precedent in Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1. It reiterated that for an act to constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC, the crucial element is the intention of the accused at the time of making the promise or representation.

• Essential Ingredient of Cheating: The complainant must show that the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention from the very beginning ("at the very inception"). The promise to perform a contract must have been made with the pre-meditated intention of never fulfilling it.

• What is Not Cheating: A mere subsequent failure to fulfil a contractual obligation—such as supplying non-conforming goods or not replacing them—is a civil breach of contract. It does not, by itself, become a criminal act unless the initial intention to cheat is proven.

B. Application to the Facts of the Case

The Court analyzed the FIR and charge-sheet and found that the allegations did not meet the legal standard for cheating:

1. Absence of Dishonest Intention: The Court found no allegations, either express or implied, that the appellants had a dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of entering into the agreement in 2017. The complaint only stated that the machine supplied did not meet the specifications and was not replaced. These are purely contractual disputes.

2. Vague Allegations: The allegations were deemed "vague." The FIR failed to specify what specific misrepresentations were made by the appellants or how they intentionally deceived the complainant at the outset. Without these details, the offence of cheating is not made out.

3. Inordinate Delay: The Court took serious note of the five-year delay in lodging the FIR. This delay, without any explanation from the complainant, raised suspicions about the bona fides (good faith) of the complaint. The Court inferred that the criminal complaint was not a genuine pursuit of justice but a belated tactic.

C. Preventing Abuse of the Criminal Process

The Court strongly condemned the tendency to use criminal law as a tool for harassment and settling civil disputes. It made several key observations:

• Alternative Remedy: The Court pointed out that the complainant's proper recourse was to file a civil suit for damages for breach of contract. Using criminal law for what is essentially a civil wrong is an abuse of the legal process.

• Guidelines from Bhajan Lal Case: The Court held that this case fell squarely within the categories defined in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, where the inherent power to quash proceedings should be exercised. Specifically, it referenced:
  Category 1: Where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken as true, do not prima facie constitute any offence.
  Category 7: Where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.

• Judicial Responsibility: Citing Vishal Noble Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680, the Court emphasized that it is the duty of the judiciary to be vigilant and "nip in the bud" the misuse of the criminal justice system to prevent unnecessary strain on the courts and to protect citizens from vexatious litigation.

5. Supreme Court's Final Directions and Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause undue harassment to the appellants.

The Court issued the following direction:

"the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and consequently, the FIR No.11/2023 dated 14.02.2023 at Police Station Lambagaon, the chargesheet dated 27.07.2023 and all consequent proceedings initiated pursuant thereto stand quashed."

In simple terms, the Supreme Court wiped out the entire criminal case against Paramjeet Singh and Sarabjit Singh, putting a permanent stop to the prosecution.

Final Citation: Paramjeet Singh & Anr. vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., (2025) INSC 1118 (Supreme Court of India).