Criminal law cannot address purely civil disputes without clear evidence of fraudulent intent.

O R D E R

Dated this the 20th day of February, 2026 This Crl.M.C. is filed invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

seeking to quash Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.486 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in the C.C. and they stand charged under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC .

3. The allegation against the petitioners in Annexure A2 Final Report is that during the period 05.03.2017 to 31.03.2018, petitioners 1 to 3 had made the de facto complainant believe that he would be inducted as a partner in the ongoing restaurant business in Malaysia and had realised from him directly as well as through Banks and other means, an amount of Rs.27,30,500/-. Thereafter, neither did the petitioners make the de facto complainant a partner as promised, nor was he taken to Malaysia. The money realised from him was not returned either. The de facto complainant, hence, alleged that he had been cheated at the hands of the petitioners and that monetary loss had been caused to him. C.C.No.486 of 2019 was thus filed and pursued against the petitioners, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC . Petitioners seek to quash the said proceedings as legally unsustainable.

4. Heard Sri.P.Jayaram, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the learned Public Prosecutor. Though the service against the 2nd respondent defacto complainant, is complete, there is no appearance on his behalf.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent of the charges levelled against them and that none of the ingredients to even prima facie maintain a charge under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC have been made out in the Final Report. It is submitted that the complaint would, at the most, reveal only a civil dispute between the parties arising out of a partnership arrangement, and no criminal overtones could be ascribed to the same. Contending that the formation of a partnership is purely a civil contract and breach, if any, of the same cannot be graduated to the level of breach of trust or cheating, it is submitted that the Final Report produced as Annexure A2, as well as all further proceedings pursuant thereto, are fit to be quashed.

Placing reliance on the dictum in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and others [(2006) 6 SCC 736] , it is contended that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or contractual matters, and that such misuse amounts to abuse of process. Reliance is also placed on the dictum laid down in Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1462] wherein the practice of using criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil remedies was deprecated, observing that money recovery cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution where the dispute is essentially civil.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor objected to the contentions put forth and submitted that the Crl.M.C. is not fit to be allowed, and none of the ingredients would justify the exercise of Section 482 Cr.P.C., and to quash the Final Report had been attracted. The precedents relied on by the petitioners do not apply to the facts of the case at hand, and there exists no circumstance to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. It is thus prayed that the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

7. It is a settled