Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Keshav Ugan Jha – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 11379 of 2023
Decided On : 16-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Ajeet Singh.
For the Respondent: Suniti Sachan.

The existence of a civil dispute does not automatically warrant quashing of criminal proceedings if cognizable offences are alleged.

Headnote:
Quashing - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 409, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. - State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335, CBI vs. Aryan Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 379), Pratibha vs. Rameshwari Devi (2007) 12 SCC 369, Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 4 SCC 439, Priti Saraf vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2021) 16 SCC 142
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought quashing of the charge-sheet and summoning order, arguing that the allegations in the F.I.R. constituted a civil dispute rather than criminal offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the F.I.R. made out a case of cognizable offences by the applicant, and the existence of a civil dispute did not warrant quashing the criminal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the F.I.R. constituted a civil dispute or cognizable offences, and whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents to establish that the mere existence of a civil dispute does not justify quashing criminal proceedings if cognizable offences are also alleged.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding no merit in quashing the charge-sheet and summoning order.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Ms. Suniti Sachan, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the impugned charge-sheet no. 1/2023 dated 16.05.2023, summoning order dated 25.05.2023 including the entire proceedings of Case No. 59497 of 2023 State vs. Keshav Ugan Jha, arising out of Case Crime No. 0047 of 2023, under Sections 409, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow pending in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow.

3. The opposite party no. 2 had lodged an F.I.R. on 24.01.2023 against the applicant and one Desh Dipak Azad, alleging that the informant's company Fuzenite Infratel Pvt. Ltd. had received an order to supply TMT bars (iron bars) to a construction company and he had in turn placed order upon Keshav Enterprises, a company based at Pune and owned by the applicant, through the co-accused Desh Dipak Azad. The informant had paid fifty percent of the sale consideration amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/- on 28.12.2022 and the material was to be delivered within four days, but when the material was not delivered and the informant repetitively contacted the supplier, he insisted for payment of balance amount also, whereupon the informant paid Rs. 18,00,000/- more through RTGS on 07.01.2023. The F.I.R. alleges that when the informant repetitively asked for refund of the amount merely Rs. 20,00,000/- were repaid and the balance amount of Rs. 38,00,000/- has not been repaid and therefore it appears that the accused persons had cheated the informant.

4. After investigation a charge sheet was submitted on 16.05.2023 alleging commission of offences under Sections 409, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. and the learned trial court has taken cognizance of the offence by means of an order dated 25.05.2023.

5. The applicant has sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are false and the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the dispute between the parties is regarding non-payment of money paid under a contract, which is purely a civil dispute.

6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have submitted that although the allegations give rise to a civil dispute but it is not that the allegations do not make out commission of a cognizable offence by the applicant.

7. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R. clearly make out a case of cognizable offences by the applicant. The mere fact that the allegations also make out existence of civil dispute would not be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings when the allegations clearly make out commission of cognizable offences by the applicant. The correctness of allegations will be examined by the learned trial court after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.

8. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the law relating to exercise of exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code and gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it was clarified that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

“(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegati