SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Guj) 2054

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. DOSHI, J.
Rohit Singhal, S/o. N.S. Singhal - Applicant
Versus 
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 10110 of 2016 
Decided On : 22-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.J. Mehta, Mr. Saurabh J. Mehta, Mr. Chintan Dave Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Filing an FIR for non-payment in a commercial transaction does not inherently constitute criminal offences such as cheating or breach of trust; such disputes are civil in nature.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 114 - Quashing of FIR - Application filed by petitioner for quashing FIR alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating - Court found that FIR arises from a civil dispute regarding non-payment for goods supplied - Delay in FIR registration and lack of evidence of criminal intent led to quashing the FIR. (Paras 1, 19, 23)

(B) Criminal Liability - Vicarious Responsibility - The court ruled that a director cannot be prosecuted without joining the company as an accused, as legal personhood must be recognized for vicarious liability - The FIR lacks essential ingredients of criminal offences as alleged, rendering continuation as abuse of process. (Paras 6, 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a director of FERNAS Construction, sought to quash an FIR alleging he committed offences under various sections of IPC due to non-payment for goods supplied based on purchase orders. The applicant argued that the FIR did not disclose any criminal act and stemmed from a civil dispute.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR did not disclose cognizable offences as claimed and identified the matter as a civil dispute. The legal entity of the company involved was also not made a party to the FIR, negating vicarious liability claims.

Issues: The primary issues addressed included whether the FIR disclosed a criminal offence or merely a civil dispute and whether the petitioner could be held criminally liable without the company being joined as an accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a prosecution under IPC sections, there must be clear evidence of entrustment and wrongful intention which was absent in this case. It also highlighted the need to differentiate between civil obligations and criminal liability.

Result: FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of business transactions. (Para 1)
2. arguments for quashing fir based on delay and nature of transactions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court's observations on the nature of criminality and arguments presented. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. definition and necessity of alleged criminal offenses in relation to the fir. (Para 10)
5. conclusion quashing fir; deemed a civil dispute. (Para 24)

ORDER :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Code”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR No. C.R I-155 of 2016 lodged with Athwa Line Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and all consequential proceedings arising from the same FIR qua the petitioner herein.

1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. M.J Mehta for the private respondent and learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondent State.

1.2 Brief facts of the case are as under :

1.3 That the complainant is running an office located at 604/A Center Point Surat and maintains his family from the said business of trading, which the complainant runs in the name and style as M/s. Arora Sales Agency.

1.4 From the FIR it is shown that the complainant came in contact with one company Viz FERNAS Constructions India Pvt. Ltd. And since 2013 the complainant is doing business of steel trading with FERNAS.

1.5 That the complainant is doing business of fabrication at Plot NO. 2/69 SEZ area Dahej, wherein the complainant used to do fabrication work for FERNAS as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties.

1.6 That FERNAS was having tie up with one OPAL Company and was doing job work of OPAL Company. Further it shows from the FIR that OPAL company has also guaranteed the complainant to pay the outstanding amount.

1.7 That on 6.3.2014, FERNAS sent on e-mail to the complainant regarding one purchase order worth Rs. 4,81,275/- and on 16.6.2014 second purchase order worth Rs.34,34,012/- was sent to the complainant. That total purchase order worth Rs. 39,15,287/- was sent by FERNAS to the complainant. That the complainant issued proforma invoice No.4 dated 21.7.2014 for Rs. 22,17,417/- confirming the purchase orders.

1.8 That FERNAS sent and L.C draft worth Rs. 22,70,417/- dated 25.7.2014 via e-mail as per the request of the complainant.

1.9. That before any confirmation regarding sending of the original L.C to BOI, complainant sent goods on 4.8.2014 against the proforma invoice No. 4 worth Rs. 22,70,417/- to FERNAS as per the purchase orders.

1.10 After giving information regarding L. C draft, FERNAS neither gave reply to any of the communications of the complainant nor did make any payment towards the goods received.

1.11 That the consideration in the form of money was not obtained in exchange of the goods given to FERNAS. It is further alleged that the complainant sent an e-mail on 6.8.2014 to one Mr. Anilkumar and Mr. Sanjay Prakash at FERNAS informing them that the company has given confirmation regarding the goods.

1.12 That the said Mr. Sanjay and Mr. Anilkumar replied to the email of the complainant on 09.08.2014, in which it was stated that as per the meeting held at the complainant's Dahej office on 04.08.2014 and as requested by FERNAS in the meeting, confirmation mail has been sent again.

1.13 That Mr. Sanjay Prakash has sent an email dated 11.08.2014 to the complainant informing that FERNAS has done the required procedure for L.C.

1.14 That the complainant after losing patience sent an e- mail dated 1.9.2014 to Mr.Rishi Kapoor, Mr. Abhai Nigam, Mr. Sanjay Prakash and Mr. Anil Kumar after 20 days of the last conversation with Mr. Sanjay Prakash. That the said e- mail was sent to inform that as per the last conversation dated 11.8.2014 no L.C is received by the comp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top