Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes, and concealment of material facts by complainants warrants quashing of such complaints.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the proceedings of the complaint titled as “Mohd Ilyas and Ors., Vs Mohd Hassan” pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil (for short ‘the trial court’) and also the order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the learned trial court, whereby the process for commission of offences under sections 409, 420 IPC has been issued against the petitioner.

2. It is stated that in the year 2019, a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction was filed by the respondents and one Mohd Bakir against the petitioner before the court of learned Principal District Judge, Kargil, which was transferred to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil. In the suit, it was pleaded by the respondents and one Mohd. Bakir that they had entered into partnership with the defendant i.e. the petitioner herein vide partnership deed dated 23.07.2016 attested by the Notary, Kargil and pursuant to the said partnership deed, the parties executed a contract for laying of Optical Fiber Cable from Khalsi to Nimo. After the completion of work, the payment was credited in the account of the petitioner, but the petitioner did not give the accounts of the payments received by him. The main grievance projected in the suit by the respondents was that after completion of work, the profit earned by the partners was not distributed amongst the partners in equal proportion and the petitioner had retained whole of the profits with him. In the said suit, the following reliefs were claimed by the respondents:-

“…….It is therefore prayed that a decree for declaration declaring therein that the non-providing of accounts by the defendant is illegal and further directing the defendant to hand over the profit of the business of the partnership firm to the partners i.e. the petitioner.

Any other order as the Hon’ble court may deem fit after analyzing the prevailing circumstances may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents along with cost of the suit………

3. The petitioner claims to have filed detailed written statement, wherein he denied that any contract or any part of contract was executed by the petitioner in collaboration with the respondents and it was stated by him that the bank account of firm M/s Mohd Hassan, belonged to him and the respondents had no right or interest either in his firm or in his bank account. It was also pleaded in the written statement that so called partnership deed relied upon for the purpose of filing of suit was forged document as the signatures of the petitioner were forged by the respondents in connivance with each other. After contesting the civil suit for more than two years, in the month of February 2021, the respondents withdrew the said suit with liberty to file fresh suit.

4. It is pleaded by the petitioner that the respondents after withdrawal of the said suit remained silent for considerable period of time and thereafter instead of filing the civil suit against the petitioner, chose to harass the petitioner and filed a criminal complaint against him under Section 415, 420, 409 and 405 IPC in the month of April 2021 and the learned trial court vide order dated 20.11.2021 issued the process against the petitioner for commission of offences under sections 420, 409 IPC.

5. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the proceedings of the complaint and also the order dated 20.11.2021 inter-alia on the grounds that the dispute, if any, as alleged by the respondents in the complaint was essentially a civil dispute and under such circumstances, the learned trial court ought not to have taken the cognizance of the offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC. It is also asserted by the petitioner that while filing the complaint before the learned trial court, the respondents have suppressed the material fact in respect of suit mentioned above. It is also urged by the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has not followed the mandate