CHAUDHARY ABDUL MAJID SHAHADATversusM/S.SHREE METAL WORKS

                                  Digitally
                                  signed by
                                  CHITRA
                      CHITRA      SANJAY
                      SANJAY      SONAWANE
                      SONAWANE    Date:
                                  2026.01.20
                                  14:32:14
                                  +0530




Chitra Sonawane                                                         15-RE-141-2005.doc



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

        Criminal Revision Application No.141 of 2005

Chaudhary Abdul Majid Shahadat … Applicant.
          Vs.
M/s Shree Metal Works & Ors.   … Respondents.
                         ---
Mr Digvijay S Kachare i/by Kuldeep Patil for respondent
No.4.
Ms SE Phad, APP for the respondent / State.
                         ---
                           Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.
                           Date : 17 January 2026.
P.C. :

      None for the applicant.

2.    Ms Ilsa Shaikh who is present in the Court has been
appointed as an Advocate to espouse the cause for applicant.
The legal fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Service
Committee. The office to provide copy of the revision
application and other relevant papers to the appointed
Advocate.

3.    Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and the
learned APP for respondent /State. Perused the entire record
and proceedings with their able assistance.
                             Page No.1 of 5
                         ____________________________________________


                              17 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane                                                                   15-RE-141-2005.doc



4.    By the present criminal revision application, the
applicant seeks to assail the legality and correctness of the
order dated 12 October 2004 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Revision Application No.108 of
2004, whereby respondents No.1 to 4 came to be
discharged from the proceedings.

5.    A perusal of the record reveals that respondents No.1
to 4 were arraigned as accused in CC No.2/S/2003 pending
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15 Court,
Mazgaon, Mumbai, pursuant to a complaint lodged by the
present applicant who is the original complainant. In due
course, the process was issued against respondents for the
alleged commission of an offence punishable under Sections
420 of the IPC. The respondents herein thereafter preferred
an    application   for        discharge                                 before   the      learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. Upon hearing both sides, the
learned Magistrate rejected the said application. Aggrieved
thereby, the respondents filed revision application before
the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 12 October
2004, allowed the revision application and discharged the
respondents No.1 to 4. Being dissatisfied with the said
                              Page No.2 of 5
                          ____________________________________________


                               17 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane                                                        15-RE-141-2005.doc



order the applicant/original complainant has preferred the
present revision application.

6.    Upon a careful scrutiny of the complaint, the material
placed on record, and the impugned order, it is evident that
the dispute essentially pertains to a commercial transaction
involving delivery of goods on credit, wherein the payment
is alleged to be outstanding. The factual matrix, even if
accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the essential
ingredients of the offence of cheating.

7.    It is a settled proposition of law that, for an offence
under Section 420 of the IPC to be made out, there must be
a clear and specific allegation of deception practiced at the
very inception of the transaction, accompanied by a
fraudulent or dishonest intention to induce the complainant
to part with property. In the present matter, the complaint is
conspicuously bereft of any such foundational averment
indicating that the transaction was vitiated by initial deceit
or dishonest inducement. There is no assertion to suggest
that the respondents harboured any fraudulent intent ab
initio, nor is there any allegation that the delivery of goods
was procured through misrepresentation or false promise.

                            Page No.3 of 5
                        ____________________________________________


                             17 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane                                                        15-RE-141-2005.doc




Mere failure to honour a financial obligation or to pay the
balance amount arising out of a commercial transaction,
without more, does not constitute cheating and, at best,
gives rise to a civil liability. The complaint, as drafted,
reflects a routine business arrangement wherein goods were
supplied with an expectation of payment at a later point of
time. The grievance of the applicant is essentially in the
nature of recovery of dues, which cannot be permitted to be
dressed up as a criminal offence. Criminal law cannot be
invoked as a tool for exerting pressure in purely contractual
or commercial disputes. Allowing such prosecution to
continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

8.      In view of the above circumstances, and considering
that the necessary ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC are
entirely lacking, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has
rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction and correctly
ordered the discharge of respondents No.1 to 4. The
impugned order does not suffer from any perversity,
illegality, or material irregularity warranting interference by
this Court.


                            Page No.4 of 5
                        ____________________________________________


                             17 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane                                                            15-RE-141-2005.doc



9.    Accordingly, the criminal revision application stands
dismissed.

                                                                      [R.N.Laddha, J.]




                           Page No.5 of 5
                       ____________________________________________


                            17 January 2026