SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 632

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sanjiv Kumar, J.
Anuraj Ratna and others - Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31196 of 2025
Decided On : 29-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Rajan Upadhyay, Sr. Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Anil Kumar Pandey, G.A.

When a dispute pertains exclusively to contractual breach or commercial recovery and lacks clear criminal elements such as dishonest inducement or misappropriation, initiation of criminal prosecution acts as an abuse of the process of law, justifying the quashing of proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 406, 409, 420, 504, 506 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Commercial dispute - Breach of contract - When a dispute is purely civil or commercial in nature and lacks manifest criminal ingredients, initiation of criminal prosecution as a tool for recovery is an abuse of the process of law. (Paras 26, 31)

(B) Cognizance and Summoning - Judicial application of mind - Magistrate must record reasons when summoning for multiple distinct offences which are mutually exclusive on the same set of facts - Mechanical summoning order without assessing the nature of the dispute is legally unsustainable. (Para 34)

Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between parties regarding payments for the export of goods. The complainant alleged criminal breach of trust, cheating, and harassment. The applicants sought to quash the proceedings, contending that the dispute was essentially a commercial disagreement over contract breach and commissions, and that criminal proceedings were initiated solely to exert pressure for recovery of outstanding payments.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the matter pertained to a commercial dispute over payments. The allegations failed to disclose essential ingredients for criminal offences. The proceedings were found to be an abuse of the legal system, as there was an attempt to convert a purely civil liability into criminal charges to compel payment.

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings were instituted primarily to settle a commercial score; whether the Magistrate applied the requisite judicial mind when summoning applicants for distinct offences simultaneously.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be used as an instrument to settle purely commercial disputes. Where a complaint lacks evidence of dishonest intention from the inception and the matter is essentially for recovery of dues, continuing criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the court's process, warranting interference.

Result: Criminal proceedings and associated orders are quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview of case facts and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. applicants argue the dispute is civil/commercial, lacking criminal intent. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. opposite party argues that specific ingredients of criminal offences exist. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. distinguishing pure commercial breach of contract from criminal offences. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. magistrate must apply judicial mind explicitly when taking cognizance. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
6. court's power to scrutinize fir for abuse of process. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
7. principle of res judicata and change in circumstances. (Para 38 , 39)
8. final order quashing criminal proceedings. (Para 40)

JUDGMENT :

Sanjiv Kumar, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ramesh Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) has been filed to quash charge-sheet dated 14.03.2022, summoning order dated 23.03.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 582 of 2022 (Anuraj Ratna and others Vs. State of U.P. and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 86 of 2022, under Sections 323, 406, 409, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Phase-III, Noida, Commissionerate, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/ Fast Track Court, Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no.2, Alok Kumar Singh, lodged an FIR against the applicants and others, stating that the first informant is share holder of Kashvi Designs Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as ‘Kashvi Ltd.’), based in C-35, 65 NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar. The above company was established in 2011, and is engaged in manufacture and export of garments. In January/February 2021, applicants Anuraj Ratna (Director) and Boris Morgan Denoual (Director) of Keleone Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as ‘Kaleone Co.’) approached and proposed to work with him together for a French Brand Leon and Harper (for brevity ‘L&H’), of which they are authorized representatives in India. Thereafter, the first informant started receiving orders. It is alleged that on 09.04.2021, Narendra Sharma, the Production Manager of Keleone Co., surveyed his factory and presented technical specifications. On 16.04.2021, Narendra Sharma submitted an amended purchase order through e-mail and assured that letter of credit would be established shortly. Pursuant thereto, orders worth €80,349.40 (Rs.69,15,000/-) were placed and goods were supplied through Keleon Company. It is further alleged that despite repeated requests for payment, the same was avoided on one pretext or another. On 06.10.2021, Director Naresh Kumar, personally went to the office of applicants, where they started blackmailing him and asked for a discount of €10,000 to make payment and in the evening they started misbehaving, hurled abuses and thrown him out of the office and also threatened him of dire consequences. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicants with a pre-planned conspiracy, have caused first informant’s company a financial loss of €80,349 (Rs.69,15,000/-). After repeated requests, they paid an amount of €47,870, whereas payment of €32,478.60 (Rs.27,50,000/-) is still due upon the applicants. They are asking for discount and commission, to make payments, whereas the informant had written, through e-mail, that commission would be paid after full payment.

4. Upon this information, FIR under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code,1860, (in short ‘IPC’), was lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Anuraj Ratna, Boris Morgan Denoual, Narendra Sharma and Abhilash. The matter was investig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top