Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for disputes that are fundamentally civil, to prevent misuse of the legal system.

ORDER :

Anil Kumar Upman, J.

1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner assailing the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jhalawar in Criminal Revision No.92/2017 whereby the learned revisional court dismissed the revision and affirmed the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khanpur District Jhalawar taking cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC, in connection with FR No.66/2009 and FIR No.229/2009, Police Station Khanpur District Jhalawar.

2. Brief facts in a nutshell are that on 29.05.2009, the respondent No.2/complainant herein submitted a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Khanpur, Jhalawar, alleging inter alia that he is a farmer by profession and earns his livelihood from agriculture activities. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused petitioner deals in clothes, ornaments and agricultural produces (jeans) etc. and runs a business in the name of M/s Premchand Praveen Kumar Kagla. It was alleged that on 02.04.2008, the accused petitioner bought 85 quintal of wheat @ Rs.1000/- per quintal and 54 quintal of wheat @ Rs.1100/- per qunital from him. Out of the total sale consideration of Rs.1,44,000/-, Rs.40,000/- were paid in cash and for remaining balance of Rs.1,04,000/-, the accused petitioner gave assurance letter to him on his firm's letter pad. However, the petitioner did not make the remaining payment on one pretext or the other. It was also alleged in the complaint that when he demanded the remaining sale consideration, the accused petitioner started quarreling and abusing him. The learned magistrate court forwarded the complaint to the concerned police station for investigation whereupon, the FIR No.229/2009 came to be registered at Police Station Khanpur District Jhalawar for offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

3. After registration of FIR, the police investigated the matter and submitted a negative final report in the court concerned, opining it to be a civil nature dispute. The respondent No.2/complainant filed a protest petition in this matter challenging the negative final report submitted by the investigating agency. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself as AW.1 and got recorded statements of four other witnesses before the learned trial court. Vide order dated 01.02.2016, learned trial magistrate, refused to accept the negative final report submitted by the investigating agency and while accepting the protest petition, took cognizance for offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC against the accused petitioner. The petitioner assailed the order taking cognizance before learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jhalwar in Revision Petition No.92/2017. However, the learned revisional court also dismissed the revision of the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by learned trial magistrate. Hence, this criminal misc. petition.

4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that learned trial court as well as learned revisional court committed grave error of law and facts while passing the impugned orders. He submits that the investigating agency, after thoroughly investigating the matter, submitted negative final report in the court concerned, opining it to be a civil nature dispute and as such, there was no occasion for the learned trial magistrate, to discard the negative final report and took cognizance for offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC. Alternatively, he contends that even for the sake of argument, if the story narrated by the complainant in the FIR is accepted to be true, then also, no offence is made out against the petitioner and it would be a civil nature dispute, arising out of business transactions, for which, initiation of criminal proceedings by way of impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law. The complainant has the