The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained when the underlying dispute is civil, particularly in the context of long-standing business relationships.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Upman, J.

1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No.239/2022 registered at Police Station Banipark, Jaipur (West) for offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

2. Brief facts in a nutshell are that the complainant-respondent No.2, submitted a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metro-II alleging inter alia that the petitioner induced him into delivering material against advanced payment by raising proforma invoices. It is alleged in the complaint that he paid advance amount but neither the petitioner supplied the material nor returned the advance amount to him. The complainant also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner made fraudulent entries in the books of accounts and usurped his money. The learned trial court sent the matter to the Police Station Banipark Jaipur for investigation whereupon the impugned FIR No.239/2022 came to be registered against the accused petitioner for offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner contends that the impugned FIR is based upon false and fabricated facts. He submits that both petitioner and the complainant are involved in the business of pulses and chickpea etc. The complainant was operating his business with the petitioner through Vardhman Mehta, proprietor M/s Vardhman Commercial, Mumbai and M/s Prakash Agro Commodity. He submits that the complainant while concealing the details of sales, purchase, receipt and payments made during period form 2018 to 2021, has lodged this FIR. During the aforesaid period, the complainant has carried out business of crores of rupees but surprisingly, it has been alleged in the FIR that the petitioner has not made payments of the transactions which took place in the year 2017 that too in the year 2022, after an inordinate delay of more than five years. As a matter of fact, the complainant hatched a conspiracy with Mr. Vardhman Mehta and made forged entries in the books of accounts and during audit, when this fact came into the knowledge of the petitioner, he filed a complaint before Economic Offence Wing ('EOW') Mumbai and in counter, the complainant had lodged this FIR. It is also contended that same complaint had been filed by Mr. Vardhman Mehta before Economic Offence Wing, Mumbai in which, after preliminary enquiry, the EOW has filed the complaint of Mr.Vardhman by opining it to be a "Civil Nature" dispute. In support of this contention, he draws attention of this Court towards copy of communication dated 05.09.2023 sent by Sr. Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing Unity-VI (GC-4), Mumbai to Mr. Vardhman Mehta.

4 Learned counsel thus, contends that the impugned FIR is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and it has been lodged in counterblast of the action taken by the petitioner against the complainant before EOW, just to harass and humiliate the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that after lodging of the impugned FIR, the petitioner company received notice from the Police Station Banipark, Jaipur and the petitioner gave detailed and specific reply to each and every allegations mentioned in the said notice. 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. Learned counsel contends that the allegations levelled in the FIR at best may be breach of contract for which, initiation of criminal proceedings by way of impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(i). Sachin Garg v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2024 (2) Supreme 73

(ii). Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673

(iii). Mohd