The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be sparingly used and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice.

ORDER : – This petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by petitioner for quashment of FIR and other consequential criminal proceedings initiated in connection with Crime No. 245 of 2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri for offense punishable under sections 420, 120-B, 406 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Facts giving rise to present petition, in short, are that complainant Ravendra Kumar Sharma, Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Shvipuri filed an application for taking action regarding registration of FIR alleging therein that petitioner without re-paying the loan amount, which was taken for purchasing Vehicle No. MP33H1193 and Chain Mountain Machine Hitachi Hyundai 220 has committed a cheating and criminal breach of trust.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no cheating has been committed against respondent No. 2 and prima facie, no evidence is available against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has been simply trying to impact criminal colour to a civil dispute. Respondent No. 2 allured the petitioner for purchase of machine in low rate of interest and which were, total amount with interest was stated, more than that the loan amount, has been repaid to respondent No. 2. Alleged crime has been got registered after around 9-10 years by respondent No. 2 and the said situation shows that it has been got registered to harass the petitioner. Petitioner has already repaid entire loan amount and now, no any loan amount has remained due with the petitioner and it has also been stated that the evidence produced by respondent No. 2 is incorrect. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 has already sold the vehicles and is using the amount on hire taken from running of the said vehicles. It is further alleged that the relevant documents on record show that respondent No. 2 is denying to issue “No Objection Certificate”. Respondent No. 2 has concealed the said fact and in collusion with the police authorities has got registered a false FIR, under sections 420, 406, 120-B of Indian Penal Code in which, the time of incident has been shown from 14-9-2010 to 18-7-2020 and the said matter is of civil nature. Under the Indian Limitation Act, it is prohibited to file any recovery suit old than three years. Therefore, respondent No. 2 has deliberately registered offence due to being barred under the civil procedure. Earlier, one complainant was also lodged before the Magistrate concerned under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which has been turned down by the Court below. Therefore, there is no basis to implicate the petitioner and, therefore, FIR as well as other consequential criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of FIR be quashed. An attempt has been made by respondent No. 2 to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. FIR registered against the petitioner constitutes an abuse of process of Court and is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka and others, decided on 26th October, 2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2021. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the motive of the respondent No. 2 shows to create pressure on the petitioner and to put him under harassment. There is no inducement or fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner right from the beginning of loan transaction. Any civil liability cannot be allowed to be executed through criminal case by exerting pressure. It is submitted that mere failure on the part of the petitioner to keep his promise at a later stage would not bring the case within the meaning of “cheating”. Respondent No. 2 has tried to give colour of criminal case which is not permissible. Unless and until, there is an intentio