Criminal proceedings should not be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta.

JUDGMENT

Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. Sharma and learned senior counsel for the respondents Mr. N. Dutta were heard.

2. By this application u/s 482 CrPC, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 17-11-2018, whereby, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offence u/s 120(B)/420/506/34 IPC against the petitioners and also for quashing the criminal proceeding in CR Case No. 145/2018.

3. The complainant/respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offence u/s 120(B)/420/506/34 IPC. On receipt of the complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and having examined two witnesses u/s 200 CrPC issued process against the petitioners.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the Magistrate in taking cognizance and issuing process on the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent, the petitioners have approached this Court for invoking the inherent power u/s 482 CrPC to quash the complaint and the criminal proceeding.

5. Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the averment made in the complaint did not make out any ingredient of criminal offence and disclosed only a civil dispute pertaining to breach of contract. Mr. Sharma further submits, that the complainant has taken recourse to criminal action only to harass the petitioners and to pressurize them for resolution of the civil dispute, and as such, the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is abuse of the process of court, which is required to be quashed. To bolster his submission, Mr. Sharma has placed reliance on the following decisions :-

(i) Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370

(ii) V.Y. Josh and Anr. Vs. State of Gujrat and Anr., (2009) 3 SCC 78

(iii) Devendra Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 495.

6. Mr. Niloy Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would submit, referring to the allegations made in the complaint, more particularly, the paragraph 5 & 6, that the complaint prima facie makes out criminal offence, and as such, the criminal proceeding cannot be quashed. Mr. Dutta further contends that in a proceeding u/s 482 CrPC for quashing a criminal proceeding at the initial stage, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the merit of the case or to find out whether the criminal proceeding would end in conviction or not. The court is only required to see whether the allegations made in the complaint in its face value prima facie makes out any offence. Mr. Dutta in support of his contention, strongly relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Sau Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2019) 14 SCC 350 as well as two decisions of this Court, viz., Promod Adhikari and Ors. Vs. State of Assam,MONU/GH/0724/2018 and Achyut Gogoi and Ors. Vs. State of Assam,MONU/GH/0287/2018.

7. There is no dispute at the bar on the legal proposition as contended by Mr. Dutta, that if the averments made in the complaint or FIR taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety makes out a criminal offence, the inherent power u/s 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding at the initial stage and that the High Court while exercising inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC, cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the merit of the case or truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint, which is an exercise to be undertaken only by the trial court at the appropriate stage. It is therefore, felt unnecessary to burden the judgment by discussing the authorities cited by Mr. Dutta.

8. In Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar (supra), the Apex Court observed that there may not be any doubt that only because civil law can be taken recourse to would not necessarily mean criminal proceeding should be barred.

9. In V.Y. Josh and Anr. Vs. State of Gujrat and Anr.(supra) , the Apex Court observed that there exists a distinction between pure contractual dispute of a civil nature and an offence of cheating. Although,