Bombay High Court
M/S CITY SCAFFOLDINGS THROUGH ITS PROP BILAL SALIM CHOHANversusDEVIREDDY SREELATHA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the respondents' disposal of the scaffolding and non‑payment of rent amounted to cheating and criminal breach of trust, making the issue process order valid and the matter criminal.
Summary
M/s City Scaffoldings, a scaffolding rental firm, leased equipment to Jacob Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (respondents 6 and 7) who in turn gave it to builders (respondents 1‑5). When the builders failed to pay rent and disposed of the scaffolding, City Scaffoldings sought an issue process order against them, which the Judicial Magistrate First Class issued. The Additional Sessions Judge later set aside that order, deeming the matter a civil dispute. City Scaffoldings filed a criminal revision, arguing that the conduct amounted to cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The High Court held that the facts showed a criminal offence, upheld the issue process order, quashed the Sessions Judge’s order, and ordered that the case be tried against respondents 1‑5. The revision application was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- The dispute whether the matter is civil or criminal in nature.
- Whether the conduct of respondents 1‑5 constitutes an offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the issue process order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class is valid and should stand.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 202
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- issue process order
- civil vs criminal dispute
- revision
- High Court
- Criminal Procedure Code
- scaffolding rental
Judgment
26-REVN-348-2024 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 348 OF 2024
M/s City Scaffoldings ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
Devireddy Sreelatha And Ors ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
SONALI by SONALI
SATISH KILAJE
SATISH Date:
2026.10.06
KILAJE 15:01:07
Ms. Pooja Khandekar a/w Mr. Devidas Bhagat i/b Hulyalkar & Associates,
+0530
Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S.S.Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this application is to the impugned order
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, whereby the
Criminal Revision Application of the respondent was allowed and Issue
Process Order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C)
against Directors (Respondent Nos. 1 to 5) of accused No.2 and respondent
Nos. 6 and 7 was set aside.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is a proprietary firm in the business of scaffolding on hire and
rental basis. The applicant company had rented material to respondent
Nos. 6 and 7 of Jacob Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. They have not challenged the
issue process order passed against them. Learned counsel further
Page 1 of 4
26-REVN-348-2024 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
submitted that the applicant persuaded respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to pay the
rent. Respondent No.6 and 7 informed the applicant that scaffolding
material was given to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 who are builders. There was
an agreement between the respondent Nos. 6 to 7 and respondent Nos. 1
to 5. The applicant approached the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to pay the rent.
In response to which, a meeting was held between all the parties.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 assured the applicant of payment of rent for the
use of material and return of the said material to the applicant. The
minutes of said meeting are on record. Learned counsel further submitted
that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had already terminated the agreement with
respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and applicant came to know about it later on
when the applicant approached respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for the payment of
rent and return of scaffolding material but they started refusing the same.
The learned J.M.F.C. had passed issue process order against respondent
Nos. 1 to 5, which was valid but learned Sessions Judge has quashed and
set it aside, which is erroneous. Learned counsel further submitted that
the emails exchanged between respondent Nos. 6 to respondent Nos. 1 to 5
clearly shows that the scaffolding material provided to respondent Nos. 1
to 5 belonged to the applicant. In spite of that, respondent Nos. 1 to 5
disposed it off, which amounts to cheating. Learned counsel further
submitted that the learned J.M.F.C. called report of police under Section
Page 2 of 4
26-REVN-348-2024 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
202 of Cr.P.C. and from the said report, it clearly reveals commission of
offence by all respondents and requested to allow the application.
3. Though respondents are served, none present for respondents.
Hence, I am deciding this application on merit.
4. Learned APP submits that appropriate order be passed.
5. I have heard all learned counsel. Perused impugned order.
While allowing the revision application filed by respondent nos. 1 to 5,
learned Sessions Judge has observed that dispute between the parties
appears to be a civil dispute and no case is made out under Section 420
and 406 of Indian Penal Code. It appears from record that applicant had
given the scaffolding material to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 of Jacob
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on rental basis. Jacob Nixon Giddam further gave
the said scaffolding material to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on rent. The
agreement in that regard is produced on record. When respondent Nos. 6
and 7 were not paying rent to the applicant, the applicant approached
them for payment of the said rent amount. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7
informed the applicant that they had given the said material to respondent
Nos. 1 and 5. When the applicant approached them, they gave an
assurance of payment of rent and return of scaffolding material after work
is over and executed minutes of the said meeting. The minutes of meeting
are produced on record. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had terminated the
Page 3 of 4
26-REVN-348-2024 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
agreement with Jacob Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent Nos. 6 and 7).
When the applicant approached respondent Nos. 1 to 5 again for payment
of rent, they refused to pay the rent as well as disposed off the scaffolding
material of the applicant. It prima facie shows the commission of offence
as alleged in the complaint by the applicant. The acts of the respondent
Nos. 1 to 5 amount to criminal liability as they disposed off the scaffolding
material of the applicant without their permission and did not pay rent
towards the use of scaffolding material. The learned J.M.F.C. had passed
issue process order which was legal and valid but learned Sessions Judge
has not considered these facts. In view of above, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The impugned order dated 10.02.2023 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, is quashed and set
aside.
(iii) The matter be tried against the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as
per order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune.
(iv) All pending applications, if any, also disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…