The central legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of a criminal Prosecution can amount to an abuse of process if the alleged offences are not made out and the dispute has a predominantly civil profile.

JUDGMENT

M.S.SONAK,J. - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Even otherwise, while issuing notice to the Respondents on 29/3/2022, we had clarified that an endeavour would be made to dispose of this Petition finally at the stage of admission given the Judgment and Order dtd. 02/08/2021 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 17/2020.

3. This Petition is for quashing the FIR bearing No. 144/2019 and the consequent Charge-sheet bearing No. 206/2019 dtd. 15/4/2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Panaji, Goa. In terms of the impugned FIR and the Chargesheet, the Petitioners have been charged with the offences under Ss. 406 and 420, read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

4. Mr Takkekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the issue raised in this Petition is entirely covered by this Court's decision dtd. 02/08/2021 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 17/2020. He points out that this Petition was instituted by Rishi Gupta (Accused No.1), and this Court, after recording finding that the allegations in the impugned FIR and the Charge-sheet, even if taken at their face value, do not spell out the ingredients of Ss. 406, 420 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, he submits no distinction between Rishi Gupta and the Petitioners' position. Therefore, based upon the reasoning in our decision dtd. 02/08/2021, the impugned FIR and the Charge-sheet must be quashed.

5. Mr Takkekar submits that the impugned FIR and the Charge-sheet suggest that the matter has a predominantly civil profile. The criminal Prosecution was launched only to pressurise the Petitioners into settling the civil disputes. Mr Takkekar submits that launching such a criminal prosecution is an abuse of the process.

6. Mr Takkekar relies on State of Haryana v/s. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, International Advanced Research Centre For Powder Metallurgy And New Materials (Arch) And Others v/s. Nimra Cerglass Technics Private Limited And Another (2016) 1 SCC 348 and Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State (Govt of Nct of Delhi) (2019) 11 SCC 706 to support his contentions.

7. Mr Bhobe learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Petitioner's case does appear to be covered by this Court's decision dtd. 02/08/2021 and, therefore, similar orders could be made in this Petition.

8. However, Mr Rohan Desai learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 (Complainant), submits that this Petition may not be entertained now that the Charge-sheet is already filed against the Petitioners. He offers that the Petitioners could be granted liberty to argue before framing charges. He submits that the present Petition may not be entertained on the grounds of such alternate remedy.

9. Mr Desai, without prejudice to the above contention, submits that Respondent No. 2 was induced to part with an amount of Rs.76.50 lakhs on the promise that she would be made a partner in a restaurant business. Mr Desai submits that if read in its entirety, the complaint discloses the commission of offences under Ss. 406, 420, read with Sec. 34 of the IPC. Therefore, he submits that no case is made out for quashing the impugned FIR or the Charge-sheet.

10. Mr Desai submits that there is a difference between the role played by the Petitioners and by Rishi Gupta. He, therefore, proposes that this Court's decision dtd. 02/08/2021 is distinguishable.

11. For all the above reasons, Mr Desai submits that this Petition may be dismissed, with costs.

12. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

13. The impugned FIR states that Rishi Gupta (Petitioner in Writ Petition No.17/2020), Zeeshan Kadar, Randhir Thakur (Petitioners) and Ms Shabnam Shaik, with common intention, induced Respondent No.2 to invest her money in their hotel business on the pretext of making her a partner. Still, they neither made Respondent No.2 a partner nor returned the amount of Rs.76.50 lakhs she investe