A dispute over loan repayment, lacking evidence of deception or fraudulent intent, is deemed a civil matter and does not justify criminal proceedings under the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Town P.S. Case No.135 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has taken a friendly loan from the informant but only repaid Rs.3,00,000/- of the said loan amount but he is not repaying the rest of the loan amount. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police registered Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No.135 of 2021 and took up the investigation of the case and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is going on at present.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofVinod Natesan vs. State of Kerala & Others, (2019) 2 SCC 401 and submits that therein in the facts of that case when the dispute between the parties can be said to be civil dispute and it was tried to be converted into a criminal dispute; the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the entire criminal proceeding.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu alias R.L. Chongthu vs. State of Bihar , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511 paragraph-21 (iii) of which reads as under:-

“21. (i)

(ii)

(iii) While it is well acknowledged and recognised that the process of investigation has many moving parts and is therefore impractical to have strict timelines in place, at the same time, the discussion made in the earlier part of this judgement, clearly establishes that investigations cannot continue endlessly. The accused is not out of place to expect, after a certain point in time, certainty- about the charges against him, giving him ample time to preparing plead his defence. If investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification, such as in this case, the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC, seeking an update on the investigation or, if the doors of the High Court have been knocked by the accused, quashing. It is clarified that delay in completion of investigation will only function as one of the grounds, and the Court, if in its wisdom, decides to entertain this application, other grounds will also have to be considered.” (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that if investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification, the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC, seeking an update on the investigation or, if the doors of the High Court have been knocked by the accused for quashing and delay in completion of investigation will only function as one of the grounds for quashing.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case ofReena Lata @ Rina Lata vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another, 2026: JHHC :1072 and submits that therein this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofDali