Court Discharges Accused in Alleged Cheating and Breach of Trust Case – Advocate Aditya Pratap Successfully represented a Businessman falsely accused of Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust

In a significant development at the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Andheri, Mumbai, the Court discharged a healthcare businessman from criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. This was granted after a detailed discharge application was filed by his counsel, Advocate Aditya Pratap. The Court, after considering the facts, legal arguments and submissions made by the defense, held that the charges against the accused lacked merit and the entire matter was primarily civil in nature, thus warranting the discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Facts of the Case:

The case traces its origins back to when an Indian company specialising in medical nutrition products filed a FIR against a former employee of theirs along with a Russian national. The complainant company accused their former employee of being involved in a fraudulent scheme, where he allegedly introduced a Russian company and its director to the complainant for the purpose of registering a medical nutritional product in Russia and CIS countries. The complainant alleged that a total of approximately USD 60,000 was to be paid for the registration of these products in two installments into the Russian entity’s account.

According to the complainant company, after this payment was made, the accused resigned from his position as an employee. The complainant claimed that despite their efforts to obtain receipts for the amounts paid, the accused failed to provide any documentation. Moreover, the complainant further alleged that upon their visit to Russia, they were informed by the Russian company that no payment had been received by them, even though the amounts had already been transferred. As a result of these findings, the complainant filed the FIR against the accused.

The Police, after conducting a flawed investigation, filed a charge sheet before the Learned Magistrate’s court at Andheri under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and Section 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Application for Discharge filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Advocate Aditya Pratap, representing the accused, filed an application under Section 239 of the CrPC seeking the discharge of his client from the case. His strategy centered around multiple key arguments aimed at demonstrating the lack of criminal liability and the absence of any prima facie evidence to support the allegations. Advocate Pratap argued that the complainant company had not entrusted any property or money directly to the accused. It was established that all payments had been made by the Indian complainant company directly to the Russian entity, for the purpose of product registration. Further there was absolutely no ‘privity of contract’ of his client with the contract executed between the Indian complainant company and the Russian entity.

Since the accused employee was not the recipient of any funds, the charges of breach of trust were entirely unfounded. Advocate Aditya Pratap pointed out that as an employee of the complainant, his client had only acted within the scope of his employment and had not misappropriated any funds or property entrusted to him. Thus, there was no case of criminal breach of trust at all. Further all funds involved had directly been paid to the Russian entity and not a single amount was ever paid to his client.

Furthermore, Advocate Aditya Pratap argued that the allegations of cheating also failed to stand as there was no evidence to suggest that the accused had engaged in any fraudulent conduct. He pointed out that there was no intent to deceive and the accused had not made any false representations or promises to the complainant. The registration agreement itself was a civil matter and any issues regarding the product registration process were related to contractual obligations which did not warrant criminal prosecution.

Further buttressing his arguments, Advocate Pratap submitted that the entire case was sheer vengeance. Since the complainant company’s products failed the registration process in Russia and CIS countries, it chose to wreak vengeance upon Advocate Pratap’s client rather than acknowledge its own shortcomings.

Additionally, Advocate Pratap further raised significant concerns regarding the delay in filing the FIR. The complainant had waited a considerable period before bringing the matter to the police and therefore questioned the bona fide intentions of the complainant in filing the FIR after such a long delay. He also emphasized that the case, at its core, was rooted in a contractual dispute. The failure to register the products and the lack of documentation were issues related to the performance of the contract. These issues were non-criminal in nature and could have been pursued through civil proceedings rather than criminal ones.

Reply by Prosecution and Rebuttal by Aditya Pratap

The Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the discharge application arguing that prima facie evidence existed against the accused, warranting the continuation of criminal proceedings. The prosecution asserted that the charge-sheet demonstrated the accused’s involvement in deception and breach of trust, amounting to criminal misconduct. The prosecution emphasized the complainant company’s purported financial losses, the alleged misappropriation of funds and misleading actions by the accused regarding the product registration process as acts of ‘cheating’ and ‘criminal breach of trust’.

The submissions-in-reply of the prosecution were quickly rebutted by Advocate Aditya Pratap, who in his rejoinder arguments stressed that the charges levelled in the charge sheet were completely groundless. Email correspondence clearly showed that the entire product registration process formalities were done in a transparent manner. Since the products of the complainant company were found to be deficient by standards of Russia and CIS countries, their registration application was rejected. Instead of acknowledging its shortcomings the complainant company, in a sheer act of vengeance, filed a malicious and misconceived FIR against its former employee, who was by then a successful businessman.

After hearing the arguments from both sides and reviewing the charge-sheet, the Court concluded that the allegations against Aditya’s client were baseless and unfounded. The Court found that the charges under Section 406 and Section 420 could not be sustained. No entrustment of money or property to the accused was proven negating the breach of trust charge. It found no evidence of fraudulent intent or deception by the accused whose actions were limited to his role as an employee. The dispute was deemed civil, stemming from contractual issues and not warranting criminal prosecution. Additionally, the significant delay in filing the FIR raised doubts about the complainant’s credibility and gave credence to the purely civil nature of the matter. Thus it was a classic case of criminal law being misused for private gains in a completely civil case, thereby amounting to abuse of process.