1. The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code” for short) seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR bearing C.R.No.I04 of 2017 registered with D.C.B. (Crime) Police Station, Dist:Ahmedabad under Sections 420, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal, 1860 (“IPC” for short).

2. It is contended by the applicants that there were business relations between the applicants and the respondent no.2original complainant. It is stated that the applicants had purchased goods i.e. grey clothes from the respondent no.2 worth Rs.17,67,273/vide bills mentioned in the FIR in the year2014. During the months from June2015 to August2015, the applicants have made payments of various amounts to the tune of Rs.4,20,000/to the respondent no.2 and due to some financial crisis in the market and non receipt of payments from the merchant to whom they had sold the goods, they could not make the payment to the respondent no.2 in time. The same does not disclose any malafide intention or manipulating act of misappropriation or detention of goods by them and hence, ingredients of offence, as narrated in the impugned FIR, are not duly satisfied from the FIR itself.

3. It is contended that the respondent no.2 has filed the alleged FIR on 04.01.2017 for nonpayment of the amount and no ingredient of offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC is made out.

3.1 It is contended that they were arrested for the alleged offences and were enlarged on bail on 09.05.2017. It is stated that the present case is purely of civil in nature, and therefore, no criminal action can be initiated against them. It is also contended that the impugned FIR has been lodged with a view to harass the applicants, to achieve some personal goals and to exercise undue pressure on them.

3.2 It is contended that the applicant no.2 has never done any business with the respondent no.2 herein and has been falsely implicated in this case. It also contended that instead of exhausting civil remedy, the respondent no.2 has indirectly adopted a very shortcut of initiating criminal proceedings.

3.3 It is also contended that it is settled law that when there is dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature, the criminal liability can never prevail over the civil law.

3.4 By narrating the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, it is contended that the offence of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 of the IPC) and cheating (Section 420 of the IPC) have specifically ingredients and in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust, there must be a entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and the person entrusted has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the property to his own use or disposed of the same dishonestly or willfully suffers any other person so to do in its violation. It is contended that in present case, no any property was entrusted to the present applicants and have not misappropriated or converted the same into their own use and the applicants had no dominion over it and hence, ingredients of either cheating or criminal breach of trust are not at all satisfied and considering the same, the FIR in question required to be quashed.

3.5 By relying upon many decisions of the Apex Court, it is also contended that ever act of breach of trust may not be resulted in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust which involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person may seek his remedy for damages in civil courts, but any breach of trust with a means rea gives rise to criminal prosecution as well.

3.6 It is contended that there is no evidence to establish that there is any manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation, but it is a simple business dealing which attracts civil remedy for damages from the Civil Courts and instead of doing so, the respondent no.2 has in