The main legal point established in the judgment is that a civil dispute cannot be allowed to be converted into a criminal dispute, and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes must be carefully considered before initiating criminal prosecution.

This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge No. 3 Electricity), Gwalior in S.T. No.322/2016, by which the charge under Section 420 of IPC has been framed against the applicant.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision, in short, are that the applicant is an employee of a Travel and Tourism Company known as 'Cox and Kings Limited' and the charge-sheet was filed against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 417, 420, 465, 467, 468 of IPC.

3. Respondent No. 2, who is a retired judicial officer, had made a written complaint against the applicant to the effect that he and his wife had booked a Europe Tour @ Rs.2,15,000/- per person along with one Govind Singh Thakur and R.C. Chhari. Initially, Govind Singh Thakur and R.C. Chhari had booked a tour and, thereafter, respondent No. 2 was informed about that. [It appears that since the friends of respondent No. 2 were going on a Europe Tour, therefore, respondent No. 2 also agreed to accompany them and called the applicant in his house seeking enquiry about the Europe Tour]. The applicant thereafter went to the house of respondent No. 2 and informed that the cost of Europe Tour would be @ Rs.2,19,000/- per person. When respondent No. 2 informed that Govind Singh Thakur has booked a tour @ Rs.2,15,000/- per person, then the applicant also agreed to offer Europe Tour @ Rs.2,15,000/- per person to the respondent no.2, and accordingly an amount of Rs.,1,00,000/- was given in advance. It was further alleged that in the month of March, 2015, the applicant had given in writing that he would arrange for the Europe Tour @ Rs.2,19,000/- per person and now by E-mail dated 02.05.2015, he is demanding Rs.2,23,140/- per person, otherwise the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- would be forfeited. Now, the applicant is not refunding the advance amount and he has also separated the tour of the respondent No. 2 from that of his friends. It was further alleged that by showing his position and under the threat of forfeiture of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the applicant is demanding a further amount of Rs.16,280/- for two persons (The respondent no.2 has claimed that the applicant had agreed to reduce the cost of European Tour @ 2,15,000/- per person and now by raising the cost of European Tour @ 2,23,140/- per person, the applicant has demanded an additional amount of Rs. 16,280/- for two persons). On this report, the police registered the FIR in Crime No. 31/2016 for offence under Sections 384, 417, 420, 465, 467 and 468 of IPC. The police after concluding the investigation filed the charge-sheet for the above-mentioned offences.

4. The applicant filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. The Trial Court after considering the allegations made against the applicant, discharged the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 465, 467 and 468 of IPC, but framed the charge under Section 420 of IPC. Since the offence under Section 420 of IPC is triable by the Court of Magistrate, therefore, the case was remitted back to the Court of Magistrate.

5. Challenging the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge No. 3 Electricity), Gwalior, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that even if the entire allegations are accepted, it would be clear that no offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out and the offence is in the nature of civil dispute and respondent No. 2 had already approached the District Consumer Forum, who had directed the Travel Agency, Cox and Kings to refund the amount of Rs.80,000/- out of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said order of the District Consumer Forum is sub-judice before the State Consumer Forum as the Travel Agency has filed an appeal.

6. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the Trial Court did not commit any