Criminal proceedings are maintainable where essential ingredients of offences like cheating or breach of trust are prima facie satisfied. The existence of a simultaneous civil dispute does not grant the court ground to quash a criminal investigation, particularly when it involves multiple victims and ongoing police inquiries.

JUDGMENT

1. The present application has been preferred seeking quashment of the First Information Report being C.R. No. 332 of 2018 registered with Puna Police Station, Surat, dated 04.11.2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. As per the allegations made in the FIR, which has been lodged at the instance of one Kishorbhai Chhaganbhai Patodiya against four accused persons, the present applicant is arraigned as accused No. 4. It is stated that the complainant has been engaged in the business of saree job work for the past two years and is the proprietor of M/s. Pramukh Fashion, while his wife is the proprietor of Akshar Fashion. It is further alleged that the complainant came into contact with the present applicant, who is a broker in the textile market. The applicant introduced accused Nos. 1 to 3 to the complainant, representing them to be reputed businessmen in the city, and assured the complainant that if he undertook job work for the sarees supplied by them, he would earn substantial profit. Acting upon such assurance, the complainant commenced business dealings with accused Nos. 1 to 3, and the applicant fixed his brokerage at the rate of 3%. It is alleged that, relying upon the assurance given by the applicant that timely payments would be made, the complainant carried out job work amounting to Rs. 3,18,36,502/-.

Upon demanding payment, accused Nos. 1 to 3 issued post-dated cheques to the complainant; however, on the due dates, the complainant was instructed not to deposit the said cheques on the ground of insufficient funds in their accounts. It is further alleged that cheques aggregating to an amount of Rs. 59,65,897/- were issued, but none of the same were honoured. It is also alleged that upon persistent demands for payment, accused Nos. 1 to 3 extended threats to the complainant. In the aforesaid background, the impugned FIR came to be lodged.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Suraj Shukla for the applicant , learned APP Ms. Vrunda Shah for the State and learned advocate Mr. Shaivang Mehta for the complainant.

4. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Shukla that the dispute in question is essentially civil in nature, which has been given a criminal colour by the lodging of the impugned FIR. It is contended that the present applicant, who is merely a broker, has not played any role so as to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences. It is further submitted that, instead of availing appropriate civil remedies for recovery of the alleged dues, the complainant has resorted to initiating criminal proceedings with a view to exert pressure and recover the amount. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1462, learned advocate Mr. Shukla has submitted that continuation of the proceedings for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Shah has submitted that the present applicant had earlier preferred an application for anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc. Application No. 5569 of 2018, which came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Court, Surat. Thereafter, the applicant challenged the said order