The court held that the FIR lacked evidence and did not disclose the ingredients of any cognizable offence. The court further held that the complainant's attempt to resolve a civil dispute through criminal proceedings was not permissible.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner-accused is Director of Ravi Surya Developers Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act and involved in the business of building construction. The petitioner assigned the construction work along with building construction materials to complainant-respondent No.2, who is proprietor of Asha Steel Fabrication. According to FIR, which is sought to be quashed herein, the complainant started construction work as agreed between the parties from 1.2.2019 for construction of Ananta Spa and Resorts Gatajaldhari, Jaipur. The construction work continued till March, 2021. Thereafter the complainant contacted the petitioner to make the payment of the work done till date. The petitioner evaded payment on excuse of verification of bills. All of a sudden, the petitioner assigned the work to some other contractor and did not make payment of due amount to the complainant. The complainant again contacted the petitioner and petitioner threatened complainant to leave the site and not to go there. Moreover, the petitioner did not allow the complainant to take away his machinery etc. kept on the work site for completion of work. Allegation is that the petitioner grabbed about Rs. 3 crores of the complainant.

2. On the allegation aforesaid, FIR No. 0411 dated 18.12.2021 was registered with Jamwa Ramgarh Police Station in the District of Jaipur Rural which is under challenge in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. Dr. Abhinav Sharma with Mr. Virendra Prajapati, assisted by Ms. Karishma Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by leading case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 as the impugned FIR is manifestly attended with malafides with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and with a view to harass the petitioner for real dispute of accounting between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that there is material on record to substantiate that on different occasions payment of bill amount, to the complainant, was made and last payment was made on 26.3.2021. When the petitioner noticed that the complainant is using inferior quality of material for construction work and in spite of warning in the nature of drawing attention of the complainant to the aforesaid lapses, the complainant did not mend, therefore, the petitioner asked the complainant to discontinue the work because building construction is not a temporary arrangement and inferior quality of materials would have caused loss in longer term. Learned counsel next contends that ingredients of none of the offences mentioned in the FIR i.e. under Section 420, 406, 384 and 120-B IPC are made out on bare perusal of FIR, hence the same is fit to be quashed. Learned counsel submits that the respondent complainant has raised total 17 bills, the petitioner made payment to Mr. Jagdish, the agent of the complainant on 6.2.2021 vide receipt at Page 126. The same receipt would reveal that the rest due amount was paid on 1.7.2021. Prior to that, against bill dated 16.10.2020 of 6 crores and odd, Jagdish received major portion of the bill and it is mentioned on Page 111 that Rs. 35 lac and odd remained due. The payment receipt at page 130 dated 26.3.2021 would reveal that on that date also payment against bill raised was made and only Rs. 5 lac remained due. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner runs against allegation of any dishonest intention at any point of time.

4. Learned counsel for the private respondents Mr. Umang Gupta, Mr. Arpit Mathur, Mr. Ashish Guwalani with Ms. Priyal Bohra contends that civil remedy is not a ground for quashing of the criminal prosecution if the ingredients of cognizable offence are disclosed in the FIR. The fraudulent and dishonest intention of the petitioner would be evident from the fact that on mid-way, the continuing work from the complainant was snatched and assigned to some other person causing huge loss by payment of unused labour