Bombay High Court
LAVLESH CLASSIC DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- S M MODAK
Holding
The magistrate was not justified to issue process; the revision is allowed and the order issuing process is quashed.
Summary
The applicants, a company and its directors, were accused by a club member of breaching service promises, leading the complainant to file a criminal complaint alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Metropolitan Magistrate initially dismissed the complaint, but on revision the magistrate issued process in 2015. The Additional Sessions Judge remanded the matter for reconsideration, noting that the police report indicated a civil dispute. On appeal, the High Court held that the magistrate had no sufficient material or reasoning to depart from the police report and that a mere breach of promise without fraudulent intent does not constitute a criminal offence. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the order issuing process was quashed, and the complaint was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate was justified in issuing process for offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 120(B) and 34 when the dispute is essentially civil.
- Whether a police report indicating a civil nature of the dispute is binding on the magistrate.
- Whether a breach of promise without fraudulent intent can give rise to criminal liability under the cited IPC sections.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 202
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120(B), 34, 406, 420
Subjects
- breach of contract
- criminal revision
- IPC 406
- IPC 420
- civil dispute
- police report
- issuance of process
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
1. REVN 119 of 2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 119 OF 2016
1. Lavlesh Classic Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Now known as Aakash Lavlesh Leisure
Private Limited.
2. I. B. Bhasin
No long as Director
3. Allaudin B. Javeri
No long as Director
4. Rajeev Anand
Managing Director
5. Dushyant C. Patel
Joint Managing Director
6. Chandulal P. Patel
since deceased
7. Lavlesh Bhasin
No long as Director
8. Bakir B. Javeri
No long as Director
9. Vinay Bhasin
Executive Director
10. Arvind K. Shah
No long as Director
Digitally
signed by
SEEMA
KSHITIJ
SEEMA
KSHITIJ
YELKAR
11. D. D. Kalia (General Nanager)
Date:
YELKAR 2026.01.22
18:07:55
+0530
Seema 1/7
1. REVN 119 of 2016.doc
Joined on 21st February 2005 as Member
12. Anjlika Chaudheri
since deceased
all having official address at 1st floor,
Diamond Palace, Hill Road,
Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050. ...Applicants
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the office of Government Pleader,
High Court, Criminal Side, Bombay.
2. Rajesh Madhusudan Sangani
having office at 34-36 Modi building
Dr. M. B. Velkar Street,
Kalbadevi Road
Mumbai – 400 002. ...Respondents
*****
Mr. R. A. Shaikh a/w A. R. Advocate for the Applicants
Khan
Mr. Hitendra J. Dedhia APP for the Respondent-State
*****
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 17th JANUARY 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri R. A. Shaikh for the
Applicants/Accused.
2. Initially, the complaint was dismissed by the learned
Seema 2/7
1. REVN 119 of 2016.doc
Metropolitan Magistrate. When the Complainant filed Revision
Application, the Sessions Judge has remanded the matter for
reconsideration as per the order dated 08th October 2008. When the
matter was again placed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, he
has issued process as per the impugned order dated 16 th April 2015.
The legality of the said order is under challenge.
3. No one is present on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.
4. Let the matter be kept back.
Later on
5. In the morning session, the matter is kept back. At 3.00 p.m.
again matter is called out, but no one is present on behalf of the
Respondent No. 2-Complainant. The only issue involved in this
revision application is “whether the learned Magistrate was justified in
issuing process on 16th April 2015 against these Applicants for an
offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with 120(B), 34 of
the Indian Penal Code”.
6. Initially, report was called under Section 202 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. The Police of L. T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai as
per report dated 29.01.2015 informed the Magistrate Court that the
Seema 3/7
1. REVN 119 of 2016.doc
dispute in between the Complainant and the accused is in respect of
not providing service at the health club and hence there is breach of
agreement. That is how learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint
as per order dated 05th February 2007.
7. No doubt the Complainant has got right to prefer the revision.
In the said revision learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the
following order on 08th October 2008:-
(i) The revision application is allowed.
(ii) The order of the Ld. Magistrate is hereby set aside and
instead of that the matter be remanded back for
reconsideration.
8. I have read the said order. The accused No. 12 is General
Manager of accused no. 1. Whereas Complainant is a member of the
club. Accused No. 12 made certain representations of providing certain
services. The complainant believed it and parted away certain money
by way of cheques. The grievance of the Complainant is in spite of
promises, the club was not started.
9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that “ police
have considered the defence and cognizance on the part of the accused,
Seema 4/7
1. REVN 119 of 2016.doc
not belonging the project”. It is further observed that “we have not to
consider the defence at the stage of issuance of process ”. That is why
learned Additional Sessions Judge has not accepted that “ dispute is of
civil nature”.
10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has overlooked one fact
and that is about calling of report under Section 202 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. The said report is called only when the trial
Magistrate is not satisfied about issuance of the process. Once the
report is received, the trial Magistrate is having option either to accept
the report or to reject it. In this case, there is a report that the dispute is
of civil nature, the learned Magistrate has chosen to accept it.
11. It is settled law that the report of the Police is not binding on the
Court and Court can form its own opinion, but when the trial
Magistrate has to take different opinion, it has to be on the basis of new
materials. It is for the reason, the materials which are placed before the
Magistrate at the beginning were not sufficient to issue process and
that is why there is postponement of issuance of process. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge overlooked the fact that the police was asked
to conduct an inquiry and in that inquiry if the Police has concluded
Seema 5/7
1. REVN 119 of 2016.doc
that it is case of breach of the promise and if learned Magistrate accepts
it, it does not amount to accepting the defence at the time of the
issuance of the process. When learned Additional Sessions Judge has
remanded the matter, the learned Magistrate was expected to apply his
mind with the materials. It is true no detailed order is required at the
time of the issuance of process, but there has to be some reasoning by
considering the materials.
12. While passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate was
possessing the complaint, annexures and the police report. I do not
find any reasoning given by the learned Magistrate for differing with
the opinion given by the Police.
13. On this background, when I have read the averments in the
complaint, I do not find that case for issuance of process for those
offences is made out. It is submitted that the Complainant has also
filed summary suit for recovery of the amount and summons for
judgment was dismissed. It is settled law that every breach of the
promises does not give rise to the criminal action. The promises must
have been made with the fraudulent intension since inception. I find it
missing from the averment in the complaint. Hence, case for
Seema 6/7
1. REVN 119 of 2016.doc
interference is made out. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Revision Application is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 16th April 2015 passed by the Court of
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47 th Court,
Esplanade, Mumbai, in C.C. No. 121/I&R/2005 is
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The complaint stands dismissed.
14. With the above observations, the Revision application is
disposed of.
15. Pending interim/criminal application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.)
Seema 7/7
Checking your session…