Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for mere breaches of contract; the FIR lacked necessary elements for invoking criminal liability under IPC.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. By way of filing this instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 27/2021 dated 13.05.2021, registered at Police Station Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer, along with all consequential proceedings, including the pending investigation before the Superintendent of Police, Additional (Crime and Vigilance), Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, for the alleged offences underSections 420 , 406 , and 120-B of IPC.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant, respondent no. 2, filed a written report before PS Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer, alleging that his construction firm executed civil works for Mytrah Energy (India) Private Limited (MEIPL) at project sites in Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan during 2015-18. While payments were made until 2018, an outstanding amount of ₹66,51,720, along with interest, remained unpaid. Despite an assurance by MEIPL to clear dues in three installments, discrepancies arose between the complainant’s claim of ₹81,04,192 and MEIPL’s records reflecting ₹58,09,889. A partial payment was made, but objections were raised regarding exclusions. It was further alleged that an agreement/MoU was executed, and despite multiple follow-ups and a legal notice, the outstanding amount was not cleared. Consequently, an FIR was registered, and investigation was initiated. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3187/2021 before this Court, wherein an interim order dated 06.07.2021 restrained their arrest while directing them to join the investigation. Pursuant thereto, they submitted relevant documents before the investigating agency. The Public Prosecutor, relying on the police report dated 30.11.2021, informed that a negative final report was proposed, which was taken on record, leading to the disposal of the petition as infructuous on 03.12.2021. Subsequently, the petitioners received a notice dated 28.04.2022 from the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime & Vigilance), Jodhpur, requiring them to rejoin the investigation.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations are frivolous, contractual in nature, and that MEIPL had already made substantial payments. They asserted that deficiencies in the complainant’s work led to financial adjustments, including costs for rectification and penalties under contractual terms. They alleged that the FIR was lodged with ulterior motives to exert pressure for unwarranted payments.

4. Heard the learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

5. A meticulous perusal of the FIR and the factual report submitted by the investigating agency unequivocally demonstrates that the allegations stem from a commercial transaction between the complainant and Mytrah Energy (India) Private Limited (MEIPL). The complainant’s own assertions, as recorded in the FIR, explicitly establish that his firm has been engaged in engineering and construction work for nearly 15 years and that it was awarded wind power projects by MEIPL pursuant to formal Work Orders/Service Orders issued between 2015 and 2017. The complainant further avers that the contractual obligations were duly executed to the satisfaction of MEIPL.

6. These admissions render it palpably evident that the dispute pertains to alleged non-payment of outstanding dues, a claim that remains contested due to discrepancies in financial reconciliation. The police investigation has also categorized the dispute as civil in natur