The court established that allegations of non-payment in a business transaction do not constitute criminal offences under IPC but rather a civil dispute, requiring quashing of the FIR.

ORAL ORDER

1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent State and learned advocate Mr.Kartik V. Pandya waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

3. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the applicant, has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No. 11214020220503 of 2022 registered with Kamrej Police Station, Surat, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

4. At the instance of respondent No.2, FIR came to be lodged against the present applicant. It appears that applicant is involved in the business of event management and organize events of marriage and other family function. It appears that applicant is facing the charge under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that a business transactions has taken place between the complainant and the applicant. During the course of business, the bill of the complainant went due to the tune of Rs. 85,24,000/- . Out of which, the applicant paid an amount of Rs. 42,61,000/- to the complainant. Thereafter, the applicant stopped making payment. Therefore, the present complaint is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, the allegations levelled against the applicant are nothing, but an abuse of process of law and no transaction ever took place between the applicant and complainant. He further submitted that, there is no nexus or relationship or rather no amount is entrusted to the applicant by the complainant and therefore, the applicant has not committed any offence of criminal breach of trust and fraud. Further, the applicant has not played any mischief or abetted the offence. Therefore, without any nexus or evidence, no offence of cheating and fraud is being attracted qua the present applicant. In view of the above contentions, Mr.Vyas prays to allow present application and quash the FIR against the applicant, as prayed for, in this application.

6. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed the present application and contended that the present applicant has committed criminal breach of trust. Thus, prima facie involvement of the applicant is established and therefore, present application may not be entertained.

7. Learned advocate for the original Complainant has vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that earlier Dineshbhai Patil was partner in his business and thereafter, he was separated. In the month of October, 2019, Dineshbhai Patil talked to present complainant that Vivek Jail is owner of Mastar Event and he is doing work of Reo Colony Resort and complainant was said to do work of Mandap in that Reo Colony Resort and thereafter Vivekbhai came to complainant's house and said to complainant that he had booking of 12 to 13 Mandap work and complainant was told that if he would do work then he would be given money for each work and applicant further said to complainant that whatever material is required he can purchase from Delhi and applicant would give money after events therefore complainant borrowed Rs. 40,00,000/- and complainant brought material of Rs. 50,00,000/- from Delhi and thereafter completed work of Decoration and Mandap of 16 program between 09.11.2019 to 16.02.2020 in Reo Colony Resort. It is further submitted that applicant got work of Mandap Decoration, lighting, Flower decoration and Generators in marriage events from complainant of Rs. 85,25,400/- and for which Bills were also prepared with GST of Om Sainath Mandap and applicant has also made advance payment of Rs. 42,61,000/- in peace meal and in voucher of moster event, sign of applicant, his manager, complainant and his daughter is also there. Since remaining amount of Rs. 42,64,400/- was remaining t