The main legal point established is that criminal prosecution should not be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta, and the court must ensure that it is not used to pressurize accused or settle scores.

JUDGMENT :

1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`the Code’ for short) for quashing the FIR being C.R.No.I-164 of 2016 registered with Puna Police Station, Surat city for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 384, 504, 506(2), 120B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short).

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this application are such that the applicant is director of a registered company M/s Dhir International Pvt.Ltd., which is doing business in manufacturing garments. The complainant-Gulmohar Fashions and the company of the applicant had entered into commercial transaction and the applicant raised some orders from the complainant company to supply the said materials on various occasions. However, the complainant company, on various occasions, has sent the goods much later than what was promised and also on various occasions the goods were defective. The company of the applicant has faced a lot of difficulties with regard to the goods supplied by the complainant-company. Therefore, the company of the applicant had returned the delayed/rejected goods back to the complainant-company along with a debit note of the said amount, which was received by the complainant-company.

2.1 It is averred that as soon as the company of the applicant sent the goods back to the complainant-company, the complainant-company made a false representation to the concerned police and thereafter the company sent legal notice dated 12.8.2016 to the complainant-company asking them to refrain from making such false complaints. Thereafter, reply was given by the complainant-company and the rejoinder was also given by the applicant-company. Thereafter, the complainant-complaint filed the impugned FIR on 18.11.2016, whereas the applicant company has filed a civil suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Delhi for settlement of the accounts/rendition of the account. It is this FIR which is sought to be quashed in this application.

3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Thacker for the applicant submitted that the impugned FIR is filed only to exert pressure and harass the present applicant. It is submitted that the applicant-company has sent back all the goods and the debit notes to the complainant-company which are duly received by them and also made the payment of the remaining goods and therefore there is no ingredients of the sections invoked in the impugned FIR. It is submitted that even from the allegations levelled in the present FIR, they are merely of civil in nature and therefore there is no criminality involved in the present offence. It is submitted that there were commercial transactions between the applicant-company and complainant-company. It is submitted that the dispute mentioned in the FIR is purely of civil nature for which instead of resorting to civil remedy, the complainant has filed the present FIR only with a view to harass the present applicant. He, therefore, prayed that as the impugned FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law, it is required to be quashed by allowing this application.

3.2 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Thacker has relied on the following decisions:

(1) Paramjeet Batra V/s State of Uttarakhand and Others reported in (2013)11 SCC 673.

(2) Binod Kumar and Others V/s State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663.

(3) Anand Kumar Mohatta V/s State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2018 SCC Onlne SC 2447.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Dave for the respondent no.2-complainant has submitted that the present application is required to be dismissed as no case is made out for interference under Section 482 of the Code and on bare reading of the FIR, the ingredients of sections invoked are made out. He further submitted that the applicant company has never complained about the delay in delivering the goods and suddenly returned the goods and debt note. He, therefore, submitted that this applic