The court held that allegations of criminal offences arising from a civil dispute require evidence for determination and cannot be quashed preemptively.

ORDER

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2025

The petitioners herein are the accused persons in Crime No. 772/2021 of the Kakkur Police Station, Kozhikode, which is now pending as C.C.No.524/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kozhikode. The offences alleged are under Sections 420, 448, 294(b), 341, 323 and 354, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of Annexure-A1 Final Report in the crime above-referred.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the instant complaint/F.I.S. was given to the Superintendent of Police only after a delay of two months from the date of occurrence, which itself will throw ample suspicion on the bonafides of the 2^nd respondent. It was then pointed out that, the legal relationship between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent was purely civil in nature, that is to say, for the execution of a contract for construction of a building and the grievance, if any, has to be resolved by recourse to the civil remedies. An attempt to foist a false case against the petitioners by roping them into criminal proceedings is quite evident from the complaint preferred before the Superintendent of Police, as also, from the statement of the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would submit that the offence under Section 420 will not lie, inasmuch as there was no intention, whatsoever, to cheat the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant at the very inception. It was also submitted that the work has been done from January to September, wherefore, the offence of cheating cannot lie. According to the learned counsel, if the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant has parted with more money, then it is for her to work out her civil remedy by filing an appropriate suit for specific performance; and not to make a false complaint alleging criminal offences. Regarding the offence under Section 448, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the same is not attracted, inasmuch as the accused persons entered the house of the defacto complainant only on her invitation. There is no criminal trespass, whatsoever. On the offence under Section 294(b), learned counsel would point out that no specific abusive word has been employed, even going by the complaint/F.I.S. preferred before the Superintendent of Police. Coming to the offence under Section 341, the submission of the learned counsel is that there is no wrongful restraint, whatsoever, even as per the complaint of the defacto complainant. Finally, with respect to the offence under Section 354 also, learned counsel would submit that there is no intention, whatsoever, to sexually abuse the modesty of the defacto complainant/2^nd respondent. Even the complaint would show that she was pushed on her chest, which would never indicate any sexual intention, whatsoever. On such premise, the petitioners seek the final report to be quashed. It was the final submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, unless the final report is quashed, it will lead to a situation that anybody can thrust a criminal action against another, even when the subject matter in dispute is purely civil in nature.

4. Per contra, these submissions were seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It was pointed out that the offence under Section 420 is clearly attracted, inasmuch as the work was performed only for a week by the petitioners/accused persons. The period of the agreement was six months. The entire consideration of the agreement, except Rs.4,00,000/-, have been given by the defacto complainant to the petitioners/accused persons. In such circumstances, the intention of the petitioners to cheat from the very inception is decipherable, is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor. As regards offence under 448, there is no indication, whatsoever, in the complaint pr