The Court held that the allegations made in the FIR, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie constitute the offences alleged against the applicant. The Court noted that the applicant had entered into a contract with the complainant to purchase the material and had received the supply, but had failed to make payment for the same. The Court also noted that the applicant had refused to pay despite repeated requests and had even threatened the complainant. The Court further held that the dispute is not predominantly civil in nature, as the allegations made in the FIR disclose the commission of criminal offences.

This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.154/2016 registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 406, 506, 294 and 34 of IPC.

2. The undisputed fact is that the applicant is one of the Directors of the Company i.e. M/s. Valecha Engineering Limited [in short ''VEL''], registered under the Indian Companies Act listed in Bombay Stock Exchange and is in the business of construction and infrastructure.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition, in short, are that the complainant/respondent No.5 Vinod Sharma lodged a FIR against the applicant and one Dinesh Valecha on the allegation that an offer was given by the applicant and another co-accused for purchase of ''crushed stone aggregate'' in large quantity and it was assured by them that ''crushed stone aggregate'' may be supplied on regular basis and the payment shall be made regularly. Relying on the assurance given by the applicant and the co-accused, the complainant supplied ''crushed stone aggregate'' on regular basis. The receipts were also issued by the applicant and the co-accused. The ''crushed stone aggregate'' was delivered to the Company at the site. It is further alleged that the Company has made payment of certain materials, but did not make payment of Rs.1,09,95,257/- and in spite of repeated requests, the applicant and the co-accused were always avoiding the payment and when instead of repeated requests the applicant and the co-accused did not make payment, therefore, the complainant/respondent No.5 went to Mumbai on 15/04/2015 and met with the applicant and the co-accused at their registered address. In a meeting between the applicant and the co-accused Dinesh Valecha, the co-accused accepted his liability to make the payment and assured that half of the remaining outstanding amount shall be paid by 12/05/2015 and the remaining amount shall be paid by 30/05/2015 and accordingly, a written document was executed. However, the applicant and the co-accused did not make the payment as assured by them and, therefore, the respondent No.5/complainant went to the registered Office of the Company at Mumbai on 13/07/2015 and then, he came to know that the applicant and the co-accused have also not made payment of the amount of the material purchased by them to different various persons. Therefore, on 13/07/2015, the respondent No.5 made a complaint at Police Station Amboli, Andheri, Mumbai and the co-accused was summoned in the Police Station where co-accused Dinesh Valecha gave in writing accepting his liability and an assurance was given that the outstanding amount shall be paid within four months. However, in spite of that written assurance, the applicant and the co-accused have not made the payment of outstanding amount. The complainant/respondent No.5 has come to know that the applicant and the co-accused have also cheated the other suppliers and accordingly, the FIRs have been registered against the applicant and the co-accused, which are still pending. The other persons have also filed criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which are also pending. It was also mentioned that the intention of the Directors of M/s. VEL was to cheat the complainant from the very inception of transaction and their intention was not to make the payment for the materials, which were supplied. If respondent No.5/complainant had any inclination about the intention of the applicant and the co-accused, then he would not have entered into such type of transaction. Now, the applicant and the co-accused have refused to make the payment and on making the demand, they are abusing the complainant and they are also extending a threat to the life of the complainant/respondent No.5, as a result of which the complainant is deeply frightened and the appli