THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SINGLE BENCH : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crl. M. C. No.03 of 2024

Petitioner : Bijay Chamling

versus

Respondent : State of Sikkim

Application under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance

Mr. Eklovya Nagpal, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Additional Advocate Gener al with Mr. Thinlay

Dorjee Bhutia, Public Prosecutor, Mr. K. T. Bhutia, Public Prosecutor

(Vigilance) and Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for

the Respondent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing : 06-03-2026

Date of Order : 06-03-2026

Date of Uploading : 06-03-2026

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER (ORAL)

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The allegation in the FIR bearing No.03/2020, dated 03-

01-2020, against the Petitioner is that an advance of ₹

1,77,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and seventy seven lakhs) only,

was made to the Petitioner’s firm by the Sikkim State Co-operative

Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (hereinafter, the

“SIMFED”), for supply of computer sets to various school of the

State. The Petitioner supplied 95 computers out of the order for

supply of 364 computers. On non -supply of the remaining

computers, a legal Notice was sent to the Petitioner’s firm to

complete the supply or refund the advance amount made to him ,

along with penal interest. However, despite having received the

legal Notice the Petitioner failed to either supply the computer sets

Crl. M. C. No.03 of 2024 2

Bijay Chamling vs. State of Sikkim

or refund the amount. Hence, the FIR against the Petitioner under

Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the case is of a civil

nature and the Complainant ought to have filed a civil suit for

recovery of money against the Petitioner. That, the FIR was

therefore wrongly registered against the Petitioner, before the

concerned police station to merely harass and humiliate the

Petitioner. The question of the Petitioner trying to cheat the

Complainant by committing breach of trust does not arise in any

event. Admittedly, the entire supply of the computer sets was not

made, only ninety-five computer sets were supplied. It is also an

admitted position that the refund demanded by the SIMFED for non-

supply of computers was also not made by the Petitioner,

nevertheless, the matter does not have a criminal bearing and the

FIR deserves to be quashed.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General object ing to the

submissions advanced by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

submitted that, the matter squarely falls under the provisions of the

criminal law as cited in the FIR. A supplementary Charge-sheet has

been filed yesterday before the Learned Trial Court and the matter

has been fixed for hearing on Charge. In view of the facts as laid

out in the FIR and the Charge-sheet the Petition deserves to be

rejected.

5. After giving due consideration to the competing

submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties, I deem it relevant to

mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elucidated in

Crl. M. C. No.03 of 2024 3

Bijay Chamling vs. State of Sikkim

Rikhab Birani and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

1

the

difference between breach of contract and a criminal offence of

cheating. Having perused the FIR (supra), at this juncture I cannot

bring myself to hold that the FIR fails to reveal a prima facie case

against the Petitioner to enable this Court to exercise its discretion

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petition

accordingly stands rejected.

(i) However, it is clarified that the Learned Trial Court shall

not be prejudiced by the instant Order of this Court during the time

of the hearing on Charge and shall arrive at an independent finding

based on the submissions advanced before it and the documents on

record.

6. Crl. M. C. No.03 of 2024 disposed of.

7. Copy of this Order be transmitted to the Learned Trial

Court for information.

( Meenakshi Madan Rai )

Judge

06-03-2026

Approved for reporting : Yes

sdl

1

2025 SCC OnLine SC 823