The court held that allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating were not substantiated, as the dispute was of a civil nature, justifying the quashing of the FIR.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal miscellaneous petition, challenge is made to the very lodging of the FIR No.80/2014 of Police Station, Merta City, District Nagaur for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the complainant, respondent no. 2, submitted a report alleging that his brother, engaged in the sale and mining of China Clay under the firm “Vasudeo Minerals and Chemicals,” supplied China Clay to the petitioners. The petitioners, who are directors of “Euro Ceramics Ltd.” situated in Bhachau, Gujarat, contacted the complainant for the supply of China Clay for manufacturing ceramic tiles. An oral agreement was executed in October 2012 at the complainant’s office in Jodhpur Chowki, Merta City, wherein it was decided to supply China Clay at Rs. 635 per ton with a transportation fare of Rs. 1200 per ton through “M/s. Adarsh Transport Company.” The petitioners paid an advance of Rs. 4,50,000 and assured payment upon receipt of the goods. The complainant continuously supplied China Clay, and due to price escalation, the rate was later increased to Rs. 675 per ton. The complainant supplied approximately 8900 tons of China Clay, which the petitioners used for manufacturing and selling tiles but failed to pay the due amount of Rs. 1,67,03,370 (Rs. 78,16,335 for the clay and Rs. 88,87,035 for transportation). Despite repeated demands, the petitioners neither paid the outstanding amount nor returned the supplied goods. On 26.09.2013, when the complainant visited the petitioners’ office in Mumbai to demand the payment, they assured him of depositing the amount in his bank account, but no payment was made. Consequently, the petitioners were accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust, leading to the registration of FIR.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the FIRs impugned along with other material made available to this Court.

4. After perusing the record and pondering upon the submissions and materials made available to the Court, prima facie, it is revealed that the matter relates to a dispute regarding business transaction which was between two companies related to outstanding amount. It is not the case of prosecution that the complainant has been duped under a fallacious transaction as there is no sufficient material available which proves the same. Be that as it may, nothing concrete is available on record so as to presume that petitioners have intentionally grabbed the goods and money and now not willing to return to the complainants.

5. This Court has dealt with the similar issue in the case of Rosaiah Yeluri and Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan and Ors. [S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3469/2018]. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the order are reproduced herein below:-

“12) Here, the question for adjudication before this Court comes that whether the act alleged by the complainant in the FIRs above is sufficient enough to constitute an offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC and further question to be considered by this Court that whether a petition for quashing of the FIR and stifle of investigation can be maintained on the grounds raised here in these petitions.

13) This Court feels that the courts are meant to impart justice and for that purpose alone it is established. From the very day of its establishment, it acquires and possesses all the powers needed to impart justice and as such for the purpose of dispensation of justice, it can exercise the inherent powers vested in it. The express provision under Section 482 CrPC only recognizes and preserves the powers which are inherent and imbibed in the courts for the purpose of achieving the ends of justice as well as for the purpose of preventing or thwarting the abuse of process of law. Whether the High Court in its inherent power which is expressly recognized under