Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to prevent process abuse.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 64 of 2023, dated 31.3.2023, registered at Police Station Theog, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No.3/informant was running a business of sale and purchase of apples at Parala, Sabji Mandi, Tehsil Theog. SFC Karnatka, PSP Puducherry, FF Shaik Sadik Tirupati, YNC Noshad (V) Warangal and EFC Najmal Kerala had purchased apples from him, but had not paid him the money. They cheated the informant and deprived him of an amount of Rs. 2,54,83,017/-. Hence, the informant filed a complaint before the police, praying that an action be taken against the merchants as per the law. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, the accused/petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the quashing of the FIR. It has been asserted that the contents of the FIR do not satisfy the requirement Section 420 of the IPC. There was a delay in reporting the matter to the police. The allegations in the FIR, even if accepted to be correct discloses a civil dispute related to the business transaction, and there is no criminality involved in the present case. A mere breach of contract or non-payment of dues does not amount to cheating. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed qua the petitioner.

4. The petition is opposed by respondents No.1 and 2 by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding the lack of maintainability and locus standi. The contents of the petition were admitted regarding the filing of the FIR. It was asserted that the petitioner had been absconding since 2019 and had not paid an amount of Rs. 1,04,28,946/- to the informant. The allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet is to be filed against the petitioner. It was specifically denied that the dispute between the parties pertained to a commercial dispute and did not involve any criminality. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. A separate reply was filed by respondent No.3/informant admitting that an FIR was registered by respondent No.3/informant against the petitioner and other apple traders. It was asserted that the apple traders had defaulted in paying the money to the informant, and he was left with no other option but to register the FIR. The petitioner remained absconded for 2 years and did not join the investigation. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have heard Mr S.C. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate with M/s Jyotirmay Bhatt and Sushmit Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2, and Mr Narender Singh Thakur, learned counsel, for respondent No.3.

7. Mr S.C. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose the commission of any offence. False allegations were made against him. The contents of the FIR, even if accepted to be correct, do not constitute the commission of any cognizable