The appellant, the original complainant, filed a complaint against the second and third respondents—individuals accused of not paying rent for a truck they had taken on lease. According to the complaint, the truck was leased for a monthly rent of Rs. 33,000, starting from July 14, 2014, with an agreement in place until March 31, 2016. While the accused initially paid the first month's rent, they failed to make subsequent payments, leading to an alleged total arrear of Rs. 12,49,780.

Following the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) directed the police to investigate the matter. However, the accused challenged this order, claiming that no formal agreement existed and asserting that the allegations did not amount to criminal offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.

The High Court quashed the cognizance order and all related proceedings, reasoning that the complaint did not adequately establish the elements of criminal offences. It noted that since one month's rent had been paid, there was no evidence of dishonest intent from the start, and the matter could be resolved through civil proceedings.

Discontented with the High Court's ruling, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The apex court emphasized that the allegations in the FIR must be taken at face value to determine if a prima facie case for investigation existed. It pointed out that if the accused failed to pay the rent and provided false assurances, this could reflect dishonest intent and warrant further investigation.

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not considering the evidence collected during the investigation, which could have been pivotal in determining the legitimacy of the charges. The Court highlighted that allegations in an FIR do not need to detail every aspect but should indicate the commission of a cognizable offence.

The Supreme Court has remitted the case to the High Court for a fresh examination of the quashing petition, instructing it to consider all evidence gathered by the investigating agency. This ruling not only reinstates the legitimacy of the complaint but also reinforces the principle that alleged misconduct related to property agreements merits a thorough investigation before dismissing the claims outright. The decision serves as a reminder that the judicial process must carefully balance the rights of all parties involved, ensuring that legitimate grievances are not overlooked.