Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can quash FIR if allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No. 11210060201023 of 2020 registered with Varachha Police Station, Surat City as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1. Shorn of embellishments, the case of the respondent no.2– original complainant is that he is the proprietor of firms namely Shyam Textile and Shivam Fabrix, engaged in the business of grey cloth for over two decades. It is alleged that in the year 2017, in the course of business dealings, he sold grey cloth worth ₹5,12,392/- on credit to one Divya Dhrashti Creation, purportedly owned by the present petitioner. Upon expiry of the credit period, despite repeated demands, the outstanding dues were allegedly not cleared and the petitioner continued to give assurances without effecting payment. When the complainant visited the office of the petitioner at A/14, India Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat, he found the premises closed, which, according to him, fortified his grievance. Consequently, a complaint came to be lodged at Varachha Police Station, resulting in registration of FIR for offences under Sections

406, 409 and 420 of the IPC.

2.2. The stand of the petitioner, however, is that the allegations are patently false, inasmuch as he never met the complainant at the address mentioned and does not own the premises alleged to be his office. It is further urged that the FIR, lodged after nearly three years of the alleged transaction, is nothing but a sheer abuse of the criminal process. According to the petitioner, the lis, even if accepted at face value, is rooted in alleged non-payment of business dues, which at best gives rise to a civil claim, but has been given the garb of criminality to exert undue pressure. Hence, invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner prays for quashment of the impugned FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. It is urged that the dispute, at best, partakes the character of a civil transaction relating to business dealings, which has been given a criminal colour to exert pressure upon the petitioner. It is further contended that there is no material on record to show any dishonest or fraudulent intention ab initio so as to attract Section 420 IPC. Similarly, there is no entrustment or misappropriation as required under Section 406 IPC.

3.1 Mainly upon above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit to allow this petition.

4. Per contra, learned advocate for the complainant would vehemently oppose the petition and submit that the allegations clearly make out a prima facie case against the petitioners under all the invoked provisions. It is contended that the petitioner had induced the complainant with dishonest intention, obtained valuable consideration, and thereafter failed to discharge the liability, thereby squarely attracting Section 420 IPC. It is further submitted that the complainant had entrusted property/valuable security to the petitioners, which has been misappropriated, thereby constituting an offence under Section 406 IPC.

4.1 Upon above submission, learned advocate for