Criminal prosecution is justified when allegations indicate dishonest intent and forgery, overriding claims of civil dispute under contractual obligations.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 - Criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant for alleged cheating and forgery in construction contract - Dispute characterized as civil by applicant; however, the court finds prima facie evidence of criminal intent and deceit involved - The allegations necessitate a trial to ascertain the authenticity of documents and the existence of dishonest intention. (Paras 1, 5, 16, 20)

(B) Quashing of FIR - The court emphasizes that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to existing civil disputes; allegations disclose sufficient grounds for the initiation of criminal prosecution. (Paras 15, 19)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a contractor, was accused of not completing construction work as per the contractual agreement, allegedly leading to significant financial losses for the complainant, who filed an FIR citing multiple criminal charges. (Paras 2, 18)

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the integrity and intention behind the agreements are in question, failing to quash the charge-sheet or summoning order, ruling that the continuation of criminal proceedings is justified. (Paras 20, 22)

Issues: The court addressed whether the dispute was purely civil or if criminal charges were warranted based on the evidence presented. (Paras 3, 15)

Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that allegations of dishonesty, particularly with the presence of forged documents, advance a criminal aspect to what the applicant argued as a civil dispute, necessitating a trial. (Paras 16, 19)

Result: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to charge-sheet under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 1)
2. factual background of construction contract and alleged defaults. (Para 2 , 3)
3. arguments asserting the dispute is civil, not criminal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
4. state's argument for maintaining criminal charges. (Para 8 , 9)
5. court's framework for examining section 482 cr.p.c. petitions. (Para 10 , 15)
6. criminal intent alleged, not just breach of contract. (Para 16 , 17)
7. existence of forged documents and continuation of criminal proceedings. (Para 18 , 19)
8. assessment that prima facie offences exist; trial deemed appropriate. (Para 20)
9. conclusion that petition under section 482 cr.p.c. is dismissed. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

1. By means of the present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the Charge-sheet No.456 of 2018 dated 28.12.2018 for the offence under Section 420 IPC in connection with FIR No. 94 of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, registered with P.S. Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun, cognizance/summoning order dated 12.02.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, in Case No. 1242 of 2019 State Vs. Anuj Singhal .

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Anuj Singhal, is a building contractor operating under the name and style of M/s Amar Builders. It is stated that in furtherance of his business, he entered into a detailed construction agreement dated 25.12.2012 with the complainant for developing a multi- storey building situated at Rajpur Road, near Sehkari Bazar, Dehradun. Under the contract, the applicant was required to carry out construction work in accordance with the sanctioned map dated 12.09.2012 at the agreed rate of Rs.525 per square foot. It was further agreed that payment would be made in stages, proportionate to the progress of construction. The complainant alleges in the FIR that he released substantial payments to the applicant from time to time through various cheques, including a major payment of Rs.77,50,000/-, and later an additional sum of Rs.25,00,000/-, pursuant to the applicant's representation that he would expedite the remaining construction work. However, despite receipt of the payments, the applicant allegedly stopped the work at the site around January 2014 and did not resume construction despite repeated requests. The complainant claims that due to non-performance by the applicant, he had to engage another firm, Humza Construction, after a gap of more than three years, to complete the remaining construction work, incurring additional expenditure.

3. It is further alleged by the complainant that the applicant not only failed to complete the work but also performed substandard and poor-quality construction, forcing him to carry out additional strengthening of the structure and other allied works at extra cost. It is also alleged that the applicant failed to provide any accounts for the money received and avoided giving bills for the construction work undertaken. The complainant also claims that because of the delay in completion of construction, he suffered a notional financial loss of approximately Rs.3.32 crores, which was quantified in a legal notice dated 10.04.2017 issued by his counsel to the applicant. Based on these allegations, FIR No. 94 of 2018 came to be registered against the applicant at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Dehradun under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506 of the IPC. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet No. 456/2018 dated 25.12.2018 for the offence under Section 420 IPC alone. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, however, summoned the applicant vide order dated 12.02.2019 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 506 IPC. The applicant has, therefore, preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the charge- sheet and summoning order on the ground that the dispute is purely civil in nature arising out of contrac