The court ruled that allegations in the FIR did not constitute a criminal offence, characterizing the matter as a civil dispute, allowing quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. V.A. Chowdhury appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Naresh Balodia , learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC read with Section 401 of the said Code praying for quashing and setting aside the charge sheet and the proceedings in respect of PRC Case No.1018/2021 arising out of Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.583/2020 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. On 14.09.2020, the Respondent No.2 Shri Dilip Bansal, being the proprietor of Hindustan Earthmover, lodged an FIR before police. The allegations brought in the said FIR are like this–

I. The Respondent No.2 is a registered micro MSME. According to the informant, the present petitioners representing T.K. Engineering Consortium Private Limited, had hatched a plan with dubious intention. They allegedly approached the informant at his office at “CHINMOY COMPLEX”, A.T. Road, Guwahati. They claimed to be big Government Contractors. They persuaded the informant to supply spare parts of Bulldozers, Excavators and Loaders to their office at Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioners allegedly agreed to pay the bills within 20 days of submissions of bills.

II. The informant supplied spares worth about Rs.4,15,99,869/- between February, 2016 to May, 2020. On 06.01.2019, the petitioners gave 12 number of cheques, out of which 11 cheques were of Rs.25,000,00/- each and 1 cheque was worth Rs.14,22,248/-. The cheques were dated 31.03.2019. In fact, all the cheques were valued at Rs.2,89,22,248/-. On presentation, all the cheques were dishonoured by the Bank. The Notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was issued to the petitioners. On the other hand, the petitioners requested the informant to give them some more time to clear the dues. Therefore, the informant did not file any case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

III. The informant alleged that out of the total dues, the petitioners had converted a sum of Rs.3,80,97,589/- to the loan account as on 02.04.2019, for the period between 30.03.2016 to 31.03.2019. According to the informant, the petitioners are cancelling such converted loan account. The informant claimed that the petitioners are now required to pay an amount of Rs.7,97,40,840/-, which includes both the principal amount and the interest thereon till August, 2020.

4. Police registered the Bharalumukh P.S. case No.583/2020 under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Mr. Bora has submitted that the FIR does not disclose the elements of a criminal case. According to Mr. Bora, the informant has converted a civil dispute into a criminal case. Mr. Bora has submitted that the informant is at liberty to approach the civil court for recovery of the money.

6. In order to buttress his point, the learned counsel Mr. Bora has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai -versus- State of Gujarat and Anr., (2017) 9 SCC 641. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment is quoted as under:

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Pr