Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a civil nature claim; prima facie evidence of criminal intent under Section 420 IPC necessitates trial.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.858 of 2022 arising out of U.P.D. Nandankanan P.S. Case No.0107 of 2022 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. (O), Bhubaneswar, including the order rejecting discharge and framing of charge, on the ground that the dispute is purely civil in nature and continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of process of law.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The present proceeding arises out of G.R. Case No. 858 of 2022 pending before the Learned JMFC (O), Bhubaneswar, which in turn originates from U.P.D. Nandankanan P.S. Case No. 0107 dated 26.07.2022 registered under Sections 420 , 294 and 506 IPC against the sole accused, Smt. Bijayalaxmi Dash.

(ii) The FIR alleges that between 11.04.2019 and 02.03.2020 the accused availed a friendly loan of Rs. 14,95,000/- from the informant, out of which Rs. 5,45,000/- was transferred through bank accounts maintained by the accused at SBI, Ravenshaw University Campus Branch, and Rs. 9,50,000/- was allegedly paid in cash, with an assurance of repayment within one year.

(iii) It is further alleged that the accused executed a money receipt dated 02.03.2020 on a non-judicial stamp paper acknowledging liability, but failed to repay despite repeated demands, and subsequently abused and threatened the informant when he approached her at her residence and workplace.

(iv) Investigation culminated in submission of charge sheet; cognizance was taken; the accused’s discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was rejected by order dated 26.08.2025; charge has been framed; and a petition seeking forensic examination of the disputed money receipt signature was also rejected at the pre-trial stage.

(v) Earlier, in CRLMC No. 658 of 2025, the High Court directed expeditious conclusion of trial, and in CRLMC No. 4274 of 2025 granted time for possible compromise discussions between the parties.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) The petitioner contends that the dispute, even if accepted on its face, is purely civil in nature arising out of an alleged monetary transaction, and does not disclose dishonest intention at inception so as to constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC , thereby rendering continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of process.

(ii) It is asserted that the FIR is a product of personal vendetta, as the informant was earlier charge-sheeted in an EOW case involving impersonation and cheating, in which the petitioner was examined as a prosecution witness, and thereafter multiple litigations with shifting monetary claims were allegedly initiated against her.

(iii) The petitioner disputes the genuineness of the alleged money receipt and denies execution of the document, asserting that signatures are forged and that the investigating agency failed to conduct proper forensic examination or independent verification of financial capacity and transactional authenticity.

(iv) It is further argued that the allegations under Sections 294 and 506 IPC are vague, omnibus and devoid of particulars relating to specific t