Criminal law cannot resolve civil disputes; at least one offence is established based on uncontroverted allegations, justifying continuation of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Since both these Writ Petitions (Cr.) have been filed with the common prayer for issuing appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing of the First Information Report being Kotwali P.S. Case No.323 of 2024, hence, both these Writ Petitions (Cr.) are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. These Writ Petitions (Cr.), under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed with the prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing of the First Information Report being Kotwali P.S. Case No.323 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 16 (2), 318 (4) and 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and consequential reliefs.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioners on behalf of M/s Oriental Aromatics Limited, have cheated and thereby dishonestly induced the informant to part with Rs.73,00,000/- with promise to supply articles of the same amount but have supplied articles worth Rs.31,49,167/- only and thereby cheated the informant of Rs.41,50,833/-. On the basis of the written-application submitted by the informant, Kotwali P.S. Case No.323 of 2024 has been registered and police took up investigation of the case, which is going on at present.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and has been instituted as a counter-blast to the termination of the distribution agreement dated 01.04.2024. It is next submitted that as the company of the respondent No.2 failed to clear the outstanding dues of the said of M/s Oriental Aromatics Limited, hence, the same led to termination of the distribution agreement. It is next submitted that it is a settled principle of law that criminal law cannot be utilized as an instrument of vexation or operation to resolve a contractual dispute. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 . In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 , Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 and G. Sagar Suri & Another vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636 .

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692 and submits that legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S. K. Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 662 and submits that in the absence of any provision in any statute, a Director of a Company or an employee cannot be held to be vicariously liable for any offence committed by the Company itself. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’b