IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI, JJ.
Ravi Mohan And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. 5280 Of 2023, Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. 2140 Of 2023
Decided On : 31-08-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - FIR registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of misappropriation and forgery - Court held that the FIR against DMI Finance was mala fide, as the informant company failed to repay loans and converted civil disputes into criminal litigation. (Paras 64, 65)
(B) Criminal Law - Ingredients of offences under Sections 415 and 420 IPC - Court emphasized that mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating; fraudulent intention must be established at the inception of the transaction. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The informant company filed an FIR alleging misappropriation of funds and forgery against the directors of DMI Finance after failing to repay loans. The court found the allegations to be unfounded and a misuse of the legal process.
Findings of Court:
The FIR against DMI Finance was quashed due to lack of evidence for the alleged offences, indicating that the informant company was attempting to evade its financial obligations.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence and if the FIR was a misuse of the legal process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the informant company's actions were an attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal matter, which is impermissible under law.
Result: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2140 of 2023 is allowed; FIR against DMI Finance quashed. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5280 of 2023 is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.)
1. By this judgment, Criminal Misc. 5280 of 2023 as well as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2140 of 2023 are decided as both the petitions arise out of same impugned First Information Report dated 21.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 486 of 2022 at Police Station – Sector 113, Commissionerate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC as well as the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar dated 17.12.2022 directing to register the F.I.R.
2. It is worth noticing that these petitions are pending since 2023 and a coordinate Bench of this Court reserved the judgment on 25.7.2023. However, subsequently on 25.9.2023, the case was again relisted for arguments. Thereafter, the case was listed before another Bench and vide order dated 8.4.2024, the arrest of the petitioners was stayed. On 27.7.2024, again the case was listed before another Bench which passed an order of rescuel and as per the order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 29.7.2024, this case is directed to be listed before this Bench.
3. Arguments were heard and judgment was reserved on 22.08.2024.
4. It is also worth noticing that though detailed petitions as well as detailed replies have been filed relying upon the number of documents and arguments were heard at length from both the sides, however, in view of the settled principle of law that a petition for quashing of F.I.R. is to be decided on the contents of the F.I.R., this judgment is based upon the documents relied upon by the informant as noticed in the impugned order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar directing the police to register the F.I.R. as well as the contents of the F.I.R. and the affidavit filed by the informant in response to the quashing petitions.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the informant-M/s Abhi Compusoft Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “informant company”) filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar. In the complaint, eight persons were nominated as accused who are referred to as A-1 to A-8 as per the memo of the parties in the complaint as well as name of the accused in the F.I.R. in the same sequence.
6. The complaint which forms basis of registration of the impugned F.I.R. reads as under :
7. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar on 17.12.2022 passed the following order :
8. Two sets of petitioners i.e. A-1 to A-4 have filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5280 of 2023 and A-5 to A-8 have filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2140 of 2023. Counter affidavits on behalf of informant company are also filed. Both the parties have also submitted their written submissions.
9. Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi learned Senior Advocate, Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vipul Ganda and Mr. Vinayak Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2140 of 2023 and Sri Manish Tiwari assisted by Ms. Himadri Batra, learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5280 of 2023. We have also heard Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal and Sri Subir Lal, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
10. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2140 of 2023 has argued that petitioner (A-5) is the Vice President of DMI Finance Private Limited (herein after referred to as ‘DMI/lender company’). Petitioners (A-6 to A-8) are the Joint Managing Directors, Head of real estate of the lender company.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5280 of 2023 has submitted that petitioner (A-1) is the Director of Omega Infovision Private Limited and Chairman of Stellar Group. Whereas petitioners (A-2 to A-4) are the are the former Directors of Square Infrastructure Private Limited (Borrower Company).
12. The u
Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 11
Babu Venkatesh and Others vs. State of Karnataka and others
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar
Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and others
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749
Priti Saraf Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2021) 16 SCC 142
Priyanka Shrivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
The court ruled that allegations of misappropriation and forgery in the FIR were unfounded, emphasizing that civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal litigation.
The court confirmed that a fiduciary relationship can give rise to criminal liability under IPC sections for failure to remit entrusted funds, emphasizing that both civil and criminal remedies may be....
Filing an FIR for non-payment in a commercial transaction does not inherently constitute criminal offences such as cheating or breach of trust; such disputes are civil in nature.
Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. Considering the allegations made in the c....
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is proven at the outset of the agreement, as established in relevant legal precedents.
Criminal prosecution is justified when allegations indicate dishonest intent and forgery, overriding claims of civil dispute under contractual obligations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.