IMPORTANT POINT
The distinction between civil disputes and criminal offenses is crucial; mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is evidence of dishonest intention.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Manoj P. Kariya, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1, Mr. S.V. Manohar, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailesh S. Sitani and Mr. Syed Ahmed, learned Advocate for non- applicant No.2.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. This petition seeks to quash of First Information Report No.307/2019, registered with Lakadganj Police Station, Nagpur alleging commission of offenses by the petitioner under Ss. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent charge-sheet in Regular Criminal Case No.7610/2019 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Nagpur.

4. Mr. Manoj Karia, learned counsel for the applicant submits that registration of the impugned First Information Report and the prosecution of the applicant based upon the same is an abuse of the criminal process. He submits that the dispute between the applicant and the complainant i.e. non-applicant No.2 has an entirely civil profile but the same is given the color of a criminal case. Based on this F.I.R., the Police Authorities have virtually forced the applicant to part with an amount of Rs.50,00,000.00 to the complainant, even by the applicant was in police custody. He submits that by lodging the F.I.R. the non- applicant No.2 is seeking to recover the amount which the complainant regards as due and payable under certain trading transactions. He submits that even if all the allegations in the complaint/F.I.R. are taken at their face value, they do not even remotely spell out any dishonest intention or fulfill the ingredients of Ss. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the registration of such F.I.R. and the consequent proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process and, therefore, rule in this petition may be made absolute. He relies on Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. The State of Karnataka and others Criminal Appeal No.1285/2021 decided by Honble Supreme Court on 26 th October 2021, Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and another Criminal Appeal No.1233/2021 decided by Honble Supreme Court on 20 th October 2021, Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and another vs. Sudha Seetharam and another (2019)16 SCC 739, Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others Criminal Appeal No.1392/2007 decided on 9/10/2007, M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque Criminal Appeal No.1241/2004 decided on 1/11/2004, Ajay Mitra. vs. State of M.P. and others Criminal Appeal No.129/2003 decided on 28/1/2003, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others Criminal Appeal No.292/1997 decided on 18/11/2003. B. Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee and another Criminal Appeal No.1444/2007 decided on 12/10/2007, Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma Vs. State of Bihar and another Criminal Appeal No.313/2000 decided on 31/3/2000 in support of his submissions.

5. Mr. S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations against the Police Authorities are misplaced. He submitted that the memorandum of settlement was executed by the applicant and non-applicant No.2 on 4/6/2019 after the applicant was released on bail. He submits that even the notary public has given a statement on this aspect in the course of the investigation. He submits that the payment was voluntarily made by the applicant and the allegations about the police recovering this amount are not correct. By referring to the reply filed on behalf of the State, he points out that the allegation in the F.I.R. is that the amount of Rs.2.50 crores was to be paid by the applicant to the non-applicant No.2 towards the maize received from non-applicant No.2. He submitted that the applicant had promised to pay this amount within a short period but could not repay the same and thereafter not only refused to make such payment, but even threatened the non-applicant No.2. He pointed out tha