Mere Breach Of Contract Can’t Be Basis For Criminal Case For Cheating SC
Mere Breach of Contract Cannot Be Basis for Criminal Case for Cheating
Context:
In India, disputes arising out of contracts are generally considered civil matters. However, sometimes parties misuse criminal laws, especially Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), to transform a civil breach into a criminal offence.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating, and criminal proceedings cannot be initiated simply because a party fails to fulfill contractual obligations.
Legal Position and Explanation:
Definition of Cheating (Section 415 IPC):
Cheating involves dishonestly inducing a person to deliver property or consent to something which causes wrongful loss or gain.
Dishonest intention or fraudulent inducement at the time of making the contract is essential.
Breach of Contract is a Civil Wrong:
Breach of contract is primarily a civil wrong and should be resolved through civil remedies like damages or specific performance.
Not every breach of contract involves dishonest intention or fraud.
Criminality Requires Mens Rea (Guilty Mind):
For cheating, the prosecution must prove mens rea — that the accused intended to cheat or defraud at the time of entering the contract.
Mere failure to perform or breach due to inability or negligence is insufficient.
Misuse of Criminal Law to Harass:
Courts have cautioned against using criminal law as a tool to settle civil disputes.
False criminal complaints for breach of contract cause harassment and clog judicial machinery.
Important Supreme Court Case Laws:
1. K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605
The Court held that mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating under Section 415 IPC.
Criminal prosecution is justified only if there is clear proof of dishonest intention at the time of contract.
2. State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384
SC clarified that dishonest intention is essential to constitute cheating.
Breach of contract per se cannot be equated with cheating.
3. P.V. Surendran v. State of Kerala, (2011) 9 SCC 737
The Court emphasized that failure to perform contractual obligations does not amount to criminal offence unless fraudulent intention is proved.
4. K. H. Mohd. Rafi v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 213
It was held that a civil dispute over contractual breach should not be converted into a criminal case without cogent evidence of cheating.
5. Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1161
While not directly on cheating, the case emphasized that breach of contract is a civil wrong and should be remedied civilly.
Summary Table:
| Element | Breach of Contract | Cheating (Section 415 IPC) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Civil wrong | Criminal offence |
| Requirement | Non-performance of contractual terms | Dishonest or fraudulent intention at contract formation |
| Remedy | Civil suit for damages or specific performance | Criminal prosecution |
| Proof Required | Breach of agreed terms | Mens rea of dishonesty and inducement |
Judicial Guidance for Courts and Police:
Before registering FIR for cheating based on breach of contract, investigating agencies should ascertain existence of dishonest intention.
Courts should exercise caution to prevent harassment through frivolous criminal complaints.
Civil remedies are adequate and preferred unless criminal intent is clearly demonstrated.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court has firmly established that mere breach of contract cannot be the basis of a criminal prosecution for cheating under Section 420 IPC or Section 415 IPC. There must be clear evidence of dishonest intention or fraud at the time of making the contract. Criminal law should not be misused to settle civil disputes, and courts must ensure that only genuine criminal cases are entertained.
RELATED Blog
0 comments