The main legal point established is that the power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, especially in cases where the allegations do not prima-facie constitute an offence or where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present criminal misc. petition and the FIR No.82/2016 registered at Police Station- Kankroli, District: Rajsamand may kindly be quashed and set aside; and the police be restrained from making any further investigation in the FIR, and it may be further directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case as the pleaded facts, and the record would reveal are that the private respondent, Rahul S/o Bhagchand, lodged an F.I.R. bearing No. 82/2016, alleging therein that he is a partner in M/s Maruti Mineral and Chemical, in which the petitioner no. 1, Usha Devi Jain was also a partner; financial dealings thereof were between Usha Jain and Smt. Pushpa Jain (mother of the complainant); Pushpa Jain, fell into dispute as a result of which a suit was filed before the concerned Court. It was further alleged that the petitioner no. 1 proposed to withdraw the said suit if a sum of Rs. 17 lacs is paid to her and shall also sign the retirement-deed as partner of the said Firm, to which the complainant acquiesced and complied with. It was, however, further alleged that at a subsequent stage, the present petitioners made an additional demand of Rs. 50 lacs from the complainant; upon refusal whereof, the present petitioners threatened him and was made to resign from the said Firm by the complainant, by concealment of a certain mining lease, which was in favour of the said firm.

3. At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the charge-sheet, against the present petitioners, has been filed and the offences under Sections 420 & 384 I.P.C. were found to be made out, and that on 22.08.2016 the said charge-sheet was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand. In support of the same, the learned Public Prosecutor produced a copy of the factual report, dated 11.09.2022, issued by the Police Station, Kankaroli, Dist. Rajsamand; the same is taken on record.

4. Learned Senior Counsel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Ravi Bhansali assisted by Mr. Vipul Dharnia, submitted that the controversy between the parties herein is in fact of a civil nature, and that the F.I.R. in question is in fact a consequence of the said pending litigation between the parties and used to give a criminal color to an issue of a civil nature. And that, therefore, the F.I.R. in question ought to be quashed and set aside. Learned Senior Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the copy of the civil suit, dated 04.04.2016, between the parties, at Annexure - 3.

5. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of Joseph Salvaraj v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 59 and Anand Kumar Mohatta and Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Ors. (2019) 11 SCC 706. Relevant portion of the judgments are reproduced hereinunder:-

In Joseph Salvaraj (supra):-

"In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the Appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the Appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation.

In such type of cases, it is necessary to draw a distinction between civil wrong and criminal wrong as has been succinctly held by this Court in Devendra v. State of U.P. 2009 (7) SCC 495, relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:

A distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed althoug