The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dispute of a civil nature cannot be converted into a criminal offence, and the filing of a mala fide FIR can be quashed under categories (1) and (3) and possibly (7) as listed in Bhajan Lal (supra).

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying for quashing of FIR No.196/2021 dated 21st December, 2021, registered at the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police, New Delhi, (for short, 'EOW') under Sections 406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), and all proceedings emanating there from.

2. The FIR in question was registered on the complaint initially made to the DCP, Rohini District, Delhi, by the respondent No.4/Siddarth Nautiyal, which was forwarded to the EOW, which in turn, got the FIR in question lodged. The FIR records that the complaint of the respondent No.4 was received in the EOW 'for necessary action' and on the basis 'pre-registration enquiry prima facie, an offence under Section 406 read with Section 120B IPC was made out'. After the FIR was registered, the Investigating Officer summoned the petitioners, and the petitioner No.2, being one of the Directors of the petitioner No.1, apart from the petitioners No.3 and 4, appeared before the EOW on 29th November, 2021 and submitted his reply. Despite which, since the EOW continued with the investigations, the present petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the FIR in question.

3. In the FIR, the respondent No.4 alleged that it was on the assurance of the petitioners that the respondent No.3 engaged in business with the petitioners on assured returns on their investments. Cars were to be purchased in the name of the complainant after availing of a loan. The petitioners were to pay the initial cash/down-payment and make payments of the EMIs, insurance charge, road tax, TDS, GST, etc.. The complainant started purchasing and delivering cars from the month of August, 2017 after availing the loan from the Bank. Payments were made in the year 2018, sometimes with delays, for which the petitioner No.2 apologized.

4. More cars were purchased in the year 2018. The total number of cars thus rose to 22. According to the complainant, towards the end of 2018, on account of delayed payments, a sum of Rs.25 lakhs had become due and payable by the petitioners to the complainant towards the payments of the cars delivered to them. The petitioner No.2 expressed financial difficulties, assuring payments within a short time. In order to maintain the business relationship, the complainant managed to secure a loan of Rs.25 lakhs, to support the petitioners in their business revival efforts, as otherwise, the complainant would have had to bear huge financial losses, legal complications and damage to his reputation in the business society. The petitioners assured to make EMI payments. However, in February/March, 2019, again the petitioners defaulted.

5. According to the complainant, while assuring payments and apologizing for the delays in payments due, the petitioner No.2 requested for hire of few more cars to revive the business. Believing his words and since few part payments were made, few more cars were purchased in 2019. From July, 2019 to December, 2019, the complainant made repeated requests through WhatsApp and telephonic conversations to the petitioners to clear the outstanding amount by the winter of 2019. On 13th November, 2019, two indemnity bonds on stamp paper were executed and signed by the parties at Mohali, which were duly notarized, whereby the petitioner No.2 confirmed about taking of physical possession of all the cars and to make payments for the same and indemnify the complainant against any loss or harm caused to the cars.

6. Some part payments against the outstanding amounts were made between October-November, 2019. One more car was purchased in December, 2019 on the assurances of the petitioner No.2. Subsequent thereto, no payments were made after March, 2021 and the petitioners failed to pay the outstanding amount, the complainant suspected the petitioners of creating forged documents and thus, complained to