The Supreme Court recently observed that the criminal justice system is increasingly being misused for vested interests and personal vendetta [Paramjeet Singh v State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors].In an order passed on September 15, a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan cautioned that the criminal law should not become a tool to settle personal scores. “Criminal law ought not become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas,” the Court said. .The Court made the observation while quashing a cheating case arising out of the sale of certain machinery in Himachal Pradesh. .The Court noted that the complainant in the present had an alternative civil remedy.Despite that, he had instead chosen the criminal route five years after the transaction, and without showing any dishonest or fraudulent intention on part of the accused.“The complainant had an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit claiming damages for the alleged violation of his contractual rights but a route through criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made out, cannot be permitted,” the Bench observed..The case stemmed from a 2017 agreement for supply of machinery by a company named Saini Engineering Works, run by one Sarabjit Singh, to M/s Soma Stone Crusher. A cheque of ₹5 lakh was issued but later stopped. After a complaint was lodged under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act in 2018, Soma Stone Crusher lodged an FIR in 2023 alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.The police filed a chargesheet but Singh moved the Court seeking quashing of the case. The Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected the plea, which led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.After considering the case, the apex court observed that the complainant had an alternative civil remedy but had instead chosen the criminal route five years after the transaction without showing dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the accused at the inception of the contract.“We do not find that the offence of cheating as defined under Section 420 IPC is made out at all and we do not find that there is any cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver any property of a valuable security involved in the instant case," the bench held.The Court underscored that mere failure to supply machinery as per specifications could not amount to cheating unless there was dishonest intent from the outset.“Mere vague allegations by the complainant that the appellants failed to provide a product of a particular specification and failed to replace the faulty machines do not satisfy the test of dishonest inducement to deliver a property or part with a valuable security as enshrined under Section 420 IPC,” the Court said. .Therefore, the Court quashed the case. .[Read Judgment]
