The court granted interim protection against coercive steps in a petition to quash an FIR, noting the applicant's contention that the dispute is civil in nature and the FIR was filed with significant delay to avoid civil limitation periods.

ORAL ORDER

Learned advocate Mr. Dinesh Dubey assisted by learned advocate Mr. Param Buch appearing for the applicant has submitted that the incident alleged to have taken place during the period between 21.06.2019 and 21.05.2021, for which, the impugned FIR came to be lodged on 25.12.2025, and as such, there is a gross delay in registering the FIR. Moreover, the dispute in the present case is purely of a civil nature, which has been given a veneer of criminality by filing the present FIR, which is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law being filed with an oblique and ulterior motive to exert pressure upon the applicant, as also to escape from the clutches of Law of Limitation for filing a suit for recovery of money before the competent civil court, which as per the relevant provision is three years from the date the amount becomes due and payable, and as such, the present FIR is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law.

He has further submitted that the applicant and the respondent No.2 are in business transaction since 2016, and the payments were also being made regularly to the respondent No.2 during the said period till 2022, however, since some of the goods supplied by the respondent No.2 were found to be defective and of substandard quality by the end users, it raised objections about the quality of the goods and stopped making payments, consequently, the applicant was compelled to return the goods to the respondent No.2, and also issued Debit Notes in respect of such defective goods being returned, which was also duly communicated to the respondent No.2 and also reported on GST portal, and as such, the allegations against the applicant of withholding the outstanding dues of the respondent No.2 are misconceived, as Debit Notes have already been issued and reported on GST portal, which is also acknowledged by the respondent No.2.

Learned advocate Mr. Dubey has drawn the attention of this Court to the various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court and submitted that looking to the background of the controversy, the same appears to be purely of a civil nature, and the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, time and gain, has expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to civil dispute, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, time and gain, warned of setting into motion a criminal law for recovery of money arising out of a civil disputes Thus, the impugned FIR is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law inasmuch as the same is filed after a huge unexplained delay of four years, thereby a lame attempt has been made to give it a cloak of criminality to get rid of the civil liabilities as also filed with an oblique motive to wreak vengeance by arm twisting tactics, and as such, the same is required to be quashed and set aside, and till then, the applicant is required to be protected.

But, learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that, in fact, initially an application in the form of complaint was given by the complainant, pursuant to which, a preliminary inquiry was carried out, and thrice the applicant was summoned by the concerned police authority, however, reason best known to him, he has chosen not to appear before the investigating ofÏcer. However, later, upon elements of cognizable offence being found against the applicant, the present FIR came to be lodged. After the registration of the FIR, police also tried to arrest the applicant, however, the same was in vain, and therefore, warrant under Section 72 of the BNSS, 2023 also came to be obtained against the applicant. Ultimately, as the investigating agency could not be able to find out the whereabouts of the applicant, an ‘A’ Summary report was filed before the court concerned. Moreover, during the course of inquiry, it also reveals that one another FIR has also been registere