Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR is not meant for conducting a mini-trial on disputed questions of fact; where an FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offenses, the court must allow the investigation to proceed, especially if the defense's foundation document is suspicious.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

21.04.2026

1. Heard Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/ respondent No. 1 and Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:

“A. Allow the present petition and quash the impugned FIR No. 109 of 2022 dated 10.03.2022 [P.S. Amanaka, Raipur] registered under Sections 420/34 of the IPC as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of or emanating therefrom; and

B. Any other order(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 10.02.2022, petitioner No. 1, Mr. Kuldeepak Arora, received a notice from P.S. Amanaka, Raipur calling upon him to respond to allegations levelled by respondent No. 2, M/s RKSK Steel India Pvt. Ltd., in a complaint alleging commission of offences under Sections 420/34 of the IPC. It is submitted that in compliance thereof, a detailed reply dated 13.02.2022 was furnished, clearly stating that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that respondent No. 2 had already approached the NCLT, New Delhi in respect of the same dispute, and therefore, the complaint was devoid of merit.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners that despite the aforesaid, FIR No. 109/2022 dated 10.03.2022 came to be registered at P.S. Amanaka, Raipur under Sections 420/34 of the IPC, wherein the petitioners have been arrayed as accused. It is submitted that the allegations pertain to supply of goods between 2015 and 2018, during which payments were admittedly made regularly, and the alleged default arose only subsequently, thereby clearly indicating a contractual dispute. He also submitted that the complainant has suppressed the material fact that the dispute stood amicably resolved in the year 2020, pursuant to which the complainant agreed to accept three flats in lieu of the alleged outstanding dues, and the said settlement was duly acted upon through issuance of credit notes, debit notes, and execution of Builder Buyer Agreements. It is thus submitted that no subsisting liability remains.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the dispute sought to be given a criminal colour is purely civil in nature, which is evident from the fact that respondent No. 2 has already initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, ‘Code of 2016’) before the NCLT, New Delhi being C.P. (IB) No. 608/2021 titled "RKSK Steel India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Apace Builders and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.", which is pending consideration, and therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process. He also contended that the impugned FIR is a misuse of criminal law to exert pressure in a civil dispute. In this regard, reliance is placed on Vijay Kumar Ghal vs. State of West Bengal , reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 344, wherein it has been held that mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless there was dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. Reliance is also placed on Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 97