The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dispute primarily civil in nature, such as non-payment under a contractual liability, does not necessarily constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, and criminal proceedings in such cases may amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral). - The present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the criminal complaint bearing No.694 of 2016 dated 22.09.2016 (CNR No.PBLD3143742016) titled as M/s S.C. Jain Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s S.K. Rai Engineers and others (Annexure P-1) under Section 420, 120-B IPC and summoning order dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Ms. Indu Bala, JMIC, Ludhiana and all further proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 is a firm which was undertaking the work of four laning of the Amritsar-Pathankot Section National Highway No.15 in the State of Punjab. Petitioner No.2- Amrik Singh is one of its partners. The petitioners had entered into a sub- contract agreement with the complainant-company for spreading, levelling and compaction of the earth by mechanical means @ Rs.140 per cubic meter. The expenses for the work (fuel, staff, transportation etc.) were to be borne by the complainant. The sub contract agreement dated 25.09.2013 was duly issued and signed by one Arvind Kumar Anand (non-petitioner- accused No.2 in the complaint).

3. It is the case of the complainant that he submitted various bills, which became due from the side of the petitiones-accused. The details thereof is as under:-

 4. The accused-petitioners, thereafter, issued the following cheques:-

5. These cheques, which were issued, were dishonoured from time to time though the accused persons had made some payments in the interim period either by cash/RTGs.

6. Notices under the Negotiable Instruments Act were issued but despite the receipt of the same, the payments were not made by the accused- petitioners on the pretext that the remaining amount would be paid to the complainant on finalization of the account between the complainant and the accused. However, no proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated.

7. Effectively, the case of the complaint-respondent was that the cheques had been dishonoured and the accused persons had refused to pay the amount allegedly on account of lack of finalization of the account, and so an offence under Section 420 IPC was made out. Moreso, because the accused persons were untraceable which clearly showed their dishonest intention.

8. Based on the aforementioned allegations, the complaint (Annexure P-1) came to be filed, pursuant to which, the summoning order (Annexure P-2) under Section 420 and 120-B IPC was passed.

9. Thereafter, the instant petition for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-1) and summoning order (Annexure P-2) was filed, in which, on 02.08.2018, the following order was passed:-

'Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that dispute between the parties pertains to the rendition of account, for which civil suit has been filed by the petitioners, which is pending and a complaint has also been filed under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code on the ground that cheques issued to the complainant have bounced.

Notice of motion for 29.10.2018.

Dasti as well'.

10. Subsequently, the complainant filed his response by way of an affidavit specifically denying the contents of the petition and reiterating that an offence was made out from a bare reading of the complaint and therefore, the summoning order had been rightly issued. It was, therefore, prayed that the quashing petition be dismissed.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the filing of the criminal complaint (Annexure