Holding

The Supreme Court held that the alleged breach of contract did not constitute a criminal offence; the FIR and chargesheet were legally infirm, and the High Court was wrong to dismiss the s.482 application, leading to the quashing of the criminal proceedings.

Summary

The appellants, Rikhab Birani and Sadhna Birani, entered into an oral agreement to sell a godown for Rs 1.35 crore, which the buyer, Shilpi Gupta, failed to fully pay, leading the sellers to re‑sell the property at a lower price. The buyer subsequently approached the Metropolitan Magistrate to register an FIR alleging offences under IPC sections 420, 406, 354, 504 and 506, despite earlier magistrate orders that the dispute was civil. A chargesheet was filed, and the magistrate summoned the appellants; they then invoked the High Court’s inherent power under s.482 CrPC, which was dismissed. The Supreme Court examined whether the alleged breach of contract amounted to a criminal offence and whether the FIR and chargesheet satisfied the requirements of s.173(2) CrPC. It held that a mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating or the other IPC offences absent fraudulent intent at the time of the contract, and that the chargesheet was deficient in particulars. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, quashed the FIR and chargesheet, and imposed costs on the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the s.482 CrPC application when the dispute is essentially civil.
Whether the alleged breach of an oral sale agreement gives rise to criminal liability under IPC sections 420, 406, 354, 504 and 506.
Whether the FIR and the chargesheet complied with the mandatory requirements of s.173(2) CrPC.
Whether the ingredients of cheating and related offences were established at the time of the contract.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 156(3), s. 173(2), s. 190, s. 202, s. 204, s. 211, s. 212, s. 213, s. 218, s. 251
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 354, s. 406, s. 415, s. 420, s. 503, s. 504, s. 506

Headnote

1334 : 2025 INSC 512 Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2061 of 2025) 16 April 2025 [Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the s.482, CrPC application filed by the appellants – Eventually, FIR registered by respondent No.2 against the appellants after dismissal of the criminal complaint holding that the matter is of civil nature – Application for quashing of FIR and chargesheet filed by the appellants, dismissed by High Court – Challenge to: Held:

Subjects

Oral agreement to sellBreach of contractQuashing of FIRCivil wrongsCriminal offencesAbuse of legal processCivil disputeMatter civil in natureCriminal prosecutionDistinction between civil and criminal liabilityCheatingCriminal breach of trustChargesheetSummoning orderVague allegationsCosts on State

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1334 : 2025 INSC 512

Rikhab Birani & Anr.
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2061 of 2025)
16 April 2025
[Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the s.482, CrPC
application filed by the appellants despite the matter being civil
in nature.

Headnotes†
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – ss.482, 173 (2) – Penal Code,
1860 – ss.406, 420, 354, 504, 506 – Alleged breach of oral
sale agreement – Eventually, FIR registered by respondent
No.2 against the appellants after dismissal of the criminal
complaint holding that the matter is of civil nature – Application
for quashing of FIR and chargesheet filed by the appellants,
dismissed by High Court – Challenge to:
Held: Impugned order set aside – Ingredients of the offences
alleged not made out – A breach of contract does not give rise to
criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction – Merely
an allegation of failure to keep a promise will not be enough to
initiate criminal proceedings – Thus, the dishonest intention on
the part of the party who is alleged to have committed the offence
of cheating should be established at the time of entering into the
transaction with the complainant, otherwise the offence of cheating
is not established or made out – Chargesheet is bereft of particulars
and details required and mandated in terms of s.173(2) merely
reproducing the contents of the FIR – FIR does not state the
material and evidence available and collected during the course of
the investigation to establish the offences u/ss.420, 406, 354, 504
and 506, IPC – FIR and chargesheet quashed. [Paras 7, 19, 25, 26]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Issuance of process by
Magistrate – Duty of Courts:
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1335

Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Held: It is the duty and obligation of the court to exercise a great
deal of caution in issuing process, particularly when the matter is
essentially of civil nature – Though the Magistrate is not required
to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence
on record to set criminal proceedings into motion – Magistrate
should carefully scrutinize the evidence on record and may even
put questions to the complainant/investigating officer etc. to elicit
answers to find out the truth about the allegations – Summoning
order has to be passed when the complaint or chargesheet discloses
an offence and when there is material that supports and constitutes
essential ingredients of the offence – The summoning order should
not be passed lightly or as a matter of course. [Paras 20, 21]

Judicial Deprecation – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420 – Failure
to distinguish between civil wrongs and criminal offences –
Cases of civil wrongs turned into criminal proceedings by
filing chargesheets, etc. – Practice deprecated:
Held: During the last couple of months, a number of judgments/
orders have been pronounced by this Court, especially in cases
arising from the State of Uttar Pradesh, deprecating the stance of
the Police as well as the courts in failing to distinguish between
a civil wrong in the form of a breach of contract, non-payment of
money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms; and a
criminal offence u/ss.420 and 406, IPC, the ingredients of which
are quite different and requires mens rea at the time when the
contract is entered into itself to not abide by the terms thereof –
Costs of ₹50,000/- imposed on the State of Uttar Pradesh – State
may conduct internal enquiries and collect this amount from the
delinquent and responsible officers. [Paras 15-19, 28, 29]

Case Law Cited
Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Another [2024] 8 SCR 670 : (2024) 10 SCC 690; Kunti and
Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2023) 6 SCC 109;
Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another (2023) 5 SCC 360;
G. Sagar Suri and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [2000] 1
SCR 417 : (2000) 2 SCC 636; Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others v.
State of West Bengal and Others [2022] 1 SCR 884 : (2022) 7
SCC 124; Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another (2023) 3 SCC 423; Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another [2024] 6 SCR 86 : 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 726 – relied on.
1336 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,
2024 SCC Online SC 171; Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v.
State of Bihar and Another [2009] 13 SCR 1254 : (2009) 8 SCC
751; V.Y. Jose and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another [2008]
17 SCR 588 : (2009) 3 SCC 78; Thermax Limited and Others v.
K.M. Johny and Others [2011] 14 SCR 154 : (2011) 13 SCC
412 – referred to.

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Oral agreement to sell; Breach of contract; Quashing of FIR; Civil
wrongs; Criminal offences; Abuse of legal process; Civil dispute;
Matter civil in nature; Criminal prosecution; Distinction between
civil and criminal liability; Cheating; Criminal breach of trust;
Chargesheet; Summoning order; Vague allegations; Costs on State.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2061 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 7415 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Appellants:
Manohar Pratap.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ankit Goel, Kamlesh Kumar Maurya, Chandrakanta Sahoo, Gaurav
Singh.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants, Rikhab Birani and Sadhna Birani, had entered into
an oral agreement to sell Roti Godown No. 28/27, Birhana Road,
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1337

Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, to respondent No.2, Shilpi Gupta, for a
consideration of ₹1,35,00,000/- (Rupees one crore thirty five lakhs
only) in June, 2020.
3. Respondent No.2, Shilpi Gupta, and her husband claimed that they
had paid an amount of ₹19,00,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs only)
towards part-sale consideration between June and September, 2020.
4. It is the case of the appellants, Rikhab Birani and Sadhna Birani,
that respondent No.2, Shilpi Gupta, had to pay 25 per cent of the
total sale consideration amount as advance on or before 15.09.2020.
However, she was unable to pay the same. In fact, a cheque of
₹10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) given by respondent No.2, Shilpi
Gupta, bounced due to insufficient funds. The appellants, Rikhab
Birani and Sadhna Birani, relied upon some WhatsApp messages
and other communications inter se them and respondent No.2, Shilpi
Gupta, and her husband, whereby the latter was asked to pay the
unpaid amount and complete the sale transaction by execution of a
registered document. This was not done.
5. After about one year, on 03.09.2021, the appellants, Rikhab Birani and
Sadhna Birani, sold the aforesaid property by way of registered sale
deed dated 03.09.2021 at the lower price of ₹90,00,000/- (Rupees
ninety lakhs only) statedly due to changed circumstances.
6. It is the case of the appellants, Rikhab Birani and Sadhna Birani,
that they had suffered losses of ₹45,00,000/- (Rupees forty five lakhs
only) on account of the failure of respondent No. 2, Shilpi Gupta, and
her husband, in paying the sale consideration amount and abiding
by the oral agreement; hence, they are not liable to refund or pay
any amount to respondent No.2, Shilpi Gupta.
7. It is the accepted position that neither the appellants, Rikhab Birani
and Sadhna Birani, nor respondent No. 2, Shilpi Gupta, initiated any
civil proceedings. On the other hand, respondent No.2, Shilpi Gupta,
approached the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar,
for registration of a First Information Report1 by taking recourse to the
provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2
However, by the detailed and reasoned order dated 26.04.2022, the

1 For short, “FIR”.
2 For short, “Cr.P.C.”.
1338 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, dismissed the application3
under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., holding that this is a civil matter
and no criminal offence is made out.
8. Respondent No.2, Shilpi Gupta, thereupon filed another criminal
complaint4 on 14.06.2022 before the Court of the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. The Metropolitan Magistrate had,
thereupon, called the Station House Officer of the Police Station –
Harbans Mohal, District - Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, to submit
a report under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. After receiving the report,
the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, vide judgment dated
14.07.2023, dismissed the criminal complaint, holding that the matter
is of civil nature.
9. Notwithstanding the two orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate,
referred to above, respondent No.2, Shilpi Gupta, directly approached
the Police Station – Harbans Mohal, District – Kanpur Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh, and registered FIR No. 78/2023 dated 22.07.2023 for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 420, 406, 354, 504 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.5
10. Aggrieved thereby and apprehending their arrest, the appellants,
Rikhab Birani and Sadhna Birani, filed an application for grant of
anticipatory bail, which was granted to them till the filing of the
chargesheet.
11. The investigating officer, on 12.09.2023, filed a chargesheet in
the aforesaid FIR No.78/2023. We shall subsequently refer to the
contents of the chargesheet.
12. On the aforesaid chargesheet being filed, the Metropolitan Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar, notwithstanding the two earlier orders, passed on the
same allegations, dismissing the criminal complaints of respondent
No.2, Shilpi Gupta, passed order dated 17.01.2024 taking cognizance
and summoning the appellants, Rikhab Birani and Sadhna Birani.
13. Thereupon, the appellants, Rikhab Birani and Sadhna Birani, preferred
a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court,6

3 Misc. Case No. 4732/2021.
4 Complaint Case No. 90180/2022.
5 For short, “IPC”.
6 A482 No. 7415/2024.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1339

Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

which was dismissed by the High Court, vide the impugned order
dated 09.05.2024, notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, stating that
at that stage, only a prima facie case was to be seen in the light of
the law laid down by this Court.
14. We are constrained to pass this detailed speaking order, as it is noticed
that, notwithstanding the law clearly laid down by this Court on the
difference between a breach of contract and the criminal offence of
cheating, we are continuously flooded with cases where the police
register an FIR, conduct investigation and even file chargesheet(s)
in undeserving cases.
15. During the last couple of months, a number of judgments/orders have
been pronounced by this Court, especially in cases arising from the
State of Uttar Pradesh, deprecating the stance of the police as well
as the courts in failing to distinguish between a civil wrong in the
form of a breach of contract, non-payment of money or disregard
to and violation of contractual terms; and a criminal offence under
Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, the ingredients of which are quite
different and requires mens rea at the time when the contract is
entered into itself to not abide by the terms thereof.
16. In Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,7
this Court quoted an earlier decision in Mohammed Ibrahim and
Others v. State of Bihar and Another,8 wherein, referring to Section
420 of the IPC, it was observed that the offence under the said
Section requires the following ingredients to be satisfied:
“18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an
offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients
of the offence of “cheating” are as follows:
(i) deception of a person either by making a false or
misleading representation or by dishonest concealment
or by any other act or omission;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to
either deliver any property or to consent to the retention
thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person

7 2024 SCC Online SC 171.
8 (2009) 8 SCC 751.
1340 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would
not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation
or property.”
Reference was also made to the decision in V.Y. Jose and Another v.
State of Gujarat and Another9 and it was observed:
“7. Similar elucidation by this Court in “V.Y. Jose v. State
of Gujarat”, explicitly states that a contractual dispute or
breach of contract per se should not lead to initiation of
a criminal proceeding. The ingredient of ‘cheating’, as
defined under Section 415 of the IPC, is existence of a
fraudulent or dishonest intention of making initial promise
or representation thereof, from the very beginning of
the formation of contract. Further, in the absence of the
averments made in the complaint petition wherefrom the
ingredients of the offence can be found out, the High Court
should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. saves the
inherent power of the High Court, as it serves a salutary
purpose viz. a person should not undergo harassment of
litigation for a number of years, when no criminal offence
is made out. It is one thing to say that a case has been
made out for trial and criminal proceedings should not
be quashed, but another thing to say that a person must
undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no offence has
been made out in the complaint. This Court in V.Y. Jose
(supra) placed reliance on several earlier decisions in “Hira
Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI”, “Indian Oil Corporation v.
NEPC India Ltd.”, “Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar
Agarwal” and “All Cargo Movers (I) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh
Badarmal Jain”.”
17. This Court, in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 10 highlighted the fine distinction

9 (2009) 3 SCC 78.
10 (2024) 10 SCC 690.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1341

Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

between the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating,
observing that the two are antithetical in nature and cannot coexist
simultaneously. Police officers and courts must carefully apply their
minds to determine whether the allegations genuinely constitute the
specific offence alleged.
18. In Kunti and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,11 this
Court referred to Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another12
wherein it was observed that a breach of contract does not give rise
to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely
on the allegation of failure to keep a promise will not be enough
to initiate criminal proceedings. Thus, the dishonest intention on
the part of the party who is alleged to have committed the offence
of cheating should be established at the time of entering into the
transaction with the complainant, otherwise the offence of cheating
is not established or made out.
19. It is the duty and obligation of the court to exercise a great deal of
caution in issuing process, particularly when the matter is essentially
of civil nature.13 The prevalent impression that civil remedies, being
time-consuming, do not adequately protect the interests of creditors
or lenders should be discouraged and rejected as criminal procedure
cannot be used to apply pressure.14 Failure to do so results in the
breakdown of the rule of law and amounts to misuse and abuse of
the legal process.
20. In yet another case, again arising from criminal proceedings initiated
in the State of Uttar Pradesh,15 this Court was constrained to note
recurring cases being encountered wherein parties repeatedly
attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing vexatious
complaints, camouflaging allegations that are ex facie outrageous
or are pure civil claims. These attempts must not be entertained
and should be dismissed at the threshold. Reference was made
to a judgment of this Court in Thermax Limited and Others v. K.M.

11 (2023) 6 SCC 109.
12 (2023) 5 SCC 360.
13 G. Sagar Suri and Another v. State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636.
14 Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others, (2022) 7 SCC 124.
15 Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2023) 3 SCC 423.
1342 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Johny and Others,16 which held that courts should be watchful of the
difference between civil and criminal wrongs, though there can be
situations where the allegation may constitute both civil and criminal
wrongs. Further, there has to be a conscious application of mind on
these aspects by the Magistrate, as a summoning order has grave
consequences of setting criminal proceedings in motion. Though the
Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should
be adequate evidence on record to set criminal proceedings into
motion. The Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence on
record and may even put questions to the complainant/investigating
officer etc. to elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations.
The summoning order has to be passed when the complaint or
chargesheet discloses an offence and when there is material that
supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. The
summoning order should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course.
21. Lastly, we would refer to another detailed judgment of this Court in
Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,17
which draws out the ingredients required to establish an offence under
Sections 406, 415, 420, 503 and 506 of the IPC in the following terms:
“36. An offence under Section 406 of the IPC requires
entrustment, which carries the implication that a person
handing over any property or on whose behalf the property
is handed over, continues to be the owner of the said
property. Further, the person handing over the property
must have confidence in the person taking the property
to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A normal
transaction of sale or exchange of money/consideration
does not amount to entrustment. Clearly, the charge/offence
of Section 406 IPC is not even remotely made out.
37. The chargesheet states that the offence under Section
420 is not made out. The offence of cheating under Section
415 of the IPC requires dishonest inducement, delivering
of a property as a result of the inducement, and damage
or harm to the person so induced. The offence of cheating
is established when the dishonest intention exists at the

16 (2011) 13 SCC 412.
17 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1343

Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

time when the contract or agreement is entered, for the
essential ingredient of the offence of cheating consists
of fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by
deceiving him to deliver any property, to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he had not been
deceived. As per the investigating officer, no fraudulent
and dishonest inducement is made out or established at
the time when the agreement was entered.
38. An offence of criminal intimidation arises when the
accused intendeds to cause alarm to the victim, though it
does not matter whether the victim is alarmed or not. The
intention of the accused to cause alarm must be established
by bringing evidence on record. The word ‘intimidate’ means
to make timid or fearful, especially : to compel or deter by
or as if by threats. The threat communicated or uttered
by the person named in the chargesheet as an accused,
should be uttered and communicated by the said person to
threaten the victim for the purpose of influencing her mind.
The word ‘threat’ refers to the intent to inflict punishment,
loss or pain on the other. Injury involves doing an illegal act.
39. This Court in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, had
referred to Section 506 which prescribes punishment for
the offence of ‘criminal intimidation’ as defined in Section
503 of the IPC, to observe that the offence under Section
503 requires that there must be an act of threating another
person with causing an injury to his person, reputation
or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested. This threat must be with
the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or to
do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or omit to
do an act which he is entitled to do. Mere expression of
any words without any intent to cause alarm would not
be sufficient to bring home an offence under Section 506
of the IPC. The material and evidence must be placed on
record to show that the threat was made with an intent to
cause alarm to the complainant, or to cause them to do,
or omit to do an act. Considering the statutory mandate,
offence under Section 506 is not shown even if we accept
the allegation as correct.”
1344 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

22. Significantly, this Court in Sharif Ahmed (supra) cautioned courts to
check such attempts of making out a criminal case on the basis of
vague and ex facie false assertions.
23. Further, Sharif Ahmed (supra) exposits the legal position relating to
the ingredients and contents of a chargesheet, drawing upon several
earlier judgments of this Court which elucidate the contents of a police
report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. It also clarifies the course
of action to be adopted by the Magistrate when the chargesheet is
found to be incomplete or vague in content. In this context, reference
may be made to Sections 190 and 204 of the Cr.P.C., as well as
Sections 211 to 213 and 218 of the Cr.P.C., which collectively govern
the framing and contents of a charge. Some of the portions of this
judgment are reproduced below:
“13. The question of the required details being complete
must be understood in a way which gives effect to the true
intent of the chargesheet under Section 173(2) of the Code.
The requirement of “further evidence” or a “supplementary
chargesheet” as referred to under Section 173(8) of the
Code, is to make additions to a complete chargesheet,8
and not to make up or reparate for a chargesheet which
does not fulfil requirements of Section 173(2) of the
Code. The chargesheet is complete when it refers to
material and evidence sufficient to take cognizance and
for the trial. The nature and standard of evidence to be
elucidated in a chargesheet should prima facie show that
an offence is established if the material and evidence is
proven. The chargesheet is complete where a case is not
exclusively dependent on further evidence. The trial can
proceed on the basis of evidence and material placed on
record with the chargesheet. This standard is not overly
technical or fool-proof, but a pragmatic balance to protect
the innocent from harassment due to delay as well as
prolonged incarceration, and yet not curtail the right of
the prosecution to forward further evidence in support of
the charges.

XX XX XX
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1345

Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

16. This Court in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
while referring to Sections 190 and 204 of the Code has
observed that the expression “cognisance” in Section 190
merely means “becoming aware of”, and when used with
reference to a court or a judge it connotes “to take notice
of judicially”. It indicates the juncture at which the court or
Magistrate takes judicial notice of the offence with a view
to initiate proceedings in respect of such an offence. This
is different from initiation of proceedings. Rather, it is a
condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by a
Magistrate or judge. At this stage, the Magistrate has to
keep in mind the averments in the complaint or the police
report, and has to evaluate whether there is sufficient
ground for initiation of proceedings. This is not the same
as the consideration of sufficient grounds for conviction, as
whether evidence is sufficient for supporting the conviction
or not, can be determined only at the stage of trial, and
not at the stage of cognisance. This aspect is important
and will be subsequently referred to when we examine the
decision of this Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India,
and the observations therein which have been referred to
on several occasions in other judgments.
17. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the
Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issue of
summons and this is not a prerequisite for deciding the
validity of the summons. Nevertheless, the requirement
of the Code is that the summons is issued when it
appears to the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. Summons is issued
to the person against whom the legal proceedings have
commenced. Wilful disobedience is liable to be punished
under Section 174 of the Penal Code, 1860. As a sequitur,
keeping in mind both the language of Section 204 of
the Code and the penal consequences, the Magistrate
is mandated to form an opinion as to whether there
exists sufficient ground for summons to be issued. While
deciding whether summons is to be issued to a person,
the Magistrate can take into consideration any prima
1346 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

facie improbabilities arising in the case. The parameters
on which a summoning order can be interfered with are
well settled by the decision of this court in Bhushan
Kumar (supra). The Magistrate in terms of Section 204
of the Code is required to exercise his judicial discretion
with a degree of caution, even when he is not required
to record reasons, on whether there is sufficient ground
for proceeding. Proceedings initiated by a criminal court
are generally not interfered with by High Courts, unless
necessary to secure the ends of justice.

XX XX XX
19. Sections 211 to 213 and Section 218 of the Code deal
with the contents of the charge. The object and purpose of
these provisions is to bring the nature of allegations against
the accused to his notice. These allegations have to be
proved and established by leading evidence. The accused
should not be taken by surprise or be unbeknownst so as
to cause prejudice to him. The provisions of the Code also
prescribe how to interpret the words used in the charge
in terms of Section 214 of the Code, the effect of defects
in the charge in terms of Section 215 of the Code, the
power of the court to alter the charge and recall of the
witnesses when a charge is altered in terms of Sections
216 and 217 of the Code.
20. There is an inherent connect between the chargesheet
submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code, cognisance
which is taken under Section 190 of the Code, issue of
process and summoning of the accused under Section
204 of the Code, and thereupon issue of notice under
Section 251 of the Code, or the charge in terms of
Chapter XVII of the Code. The details set out in the
chargesheet have a substantial impact on the efficacy of
procedure at the subsequent stages. The chargesheet is
integral to the process of taking cognisance, the issue of
notice and framing of charge, being the only investigative
document and evidence available to the court till that
stage. Substantiated reasons and grounds for an offence
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1347

Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

being made in the chargesheet are a key resource for a
Magistrate to evaluate whether there are sufficient grounds
for taking cognisance, initiating proceedings, and then
issuing notice, framing charges etc.

XX XX XX
26. The object and purpose of the police investigation is
manyfold. It includes the need to ensure transparent and
free investigation to ascertain the facts, examine whether
or not an offence is committed, identify the offender if
an offence is committed, and to lay before the court
the evidence which has been collected, the truth and
correctness of which is thereupon decided by the court.
27. In H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi21,
this Court notes that the process of investigation generally
consists of : 1) proceeding to the concerned spot, 2)
ascertainment of facts and circumstances, 3) discovery and
arrest, 4) collection of evidence which includes examination
of various persons, search of places and seizure of things,
and 5) formation of an opinion on whether an offence is
made out, and filing the chargesheet accordingly. The
formation of opinion is therefore the culmination of several
stages that an investigation goes through. This Court in
its decision in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra22 states
that the submission of the chargesheet or the final report
is dependent on the nature of opinion formed, which is
the final step in the investigation.
28. The final report has to be prepared with these aspects
in mind and should show with sufficient particularity and
clarity, the contravention of the law which is alleged. When
the report complies with the said requirements, the court
concerned should apply its mind whether or not to take
cognisance and also proceed by issuing summons to the
accused. While doing so, the court will take into account
the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161
of the Code and the documents placed on record by the
investigating officer.
1348 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

29. In case of any doubts or ambiguity arising in ascertaining
the facts and evidence, the Magistrate can, before taking
cognisance, call upon the investigating officer to clarify and
give better particulars, order further investigation, or even
record statements in terms of Section 202 of the Code.

XX XX XX”

24. The chargesheet in the present case is bereft of particulars and
details required and mandated in terms of Section 173(2) of the
Cr.P.C. It merely reproduces the contents of the FIR which makes
reference to the payments made as well as the allegation that in
the revenue records, the godown in question was recorded in the
name of Rakesh Birani, the son of the appellant, Rikhab Birani. It
is noted that the appellant, Rikhab Birani, informed the complainant
that Rakesh Birani had expired. The complainant had then requested
refund of money, etc. However, the FIR does not state the material
and evidence available and collected during the course of the
investigation to establish the offences under Sections 420, 406, 354,
504 and 506 of the IPC. Clearly, the ingredients of the aforesaid are
not established and made out.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned
judgment/order and allow the present appeal quashing the FIR and
the resultant proceedings, including the chargesheet.
26. We clarify that the present appeal only deals with the question of
criminal offence. We have not commented or made any observations
on the civil rights of complainant-respondent No.2.
27. We are also constrained to impose costs of ₹50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) on the State of Uttar Pradesh as, in spite of repeated
judgments/orders of this Court, we are being flooded with cases of
civil wrongs being made the subject matter of criminal proceedings
by filing chargesheets, etc.
28. These costs will be paid by the State of Uttar Pradesh within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It will
be open to the State of Uttar Pradesh to conduct internal enquiries
and collect this amount from the delinquent and responsible officers.
Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Chief
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1349

Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh who shall be responsible for
ensuring the payment of costs.
29. We would have imposed costs on the complainant-respondent No.2
also but are refraining from doing so on account of the possibility
that she was persuaded and guided by wrong legal advice.
30. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey