The mere non-payment of debt does not constitute criminal offenses under IPC Sections 406 and 420 without deception; criminal proceedings based on such allegations are an abuse of process.

O R D E R

The present petition has been filed by the sole accused in Crime No.93 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police seeking to quash the F.I.R wherein the petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections

406, 420 and 507 of I.P.C.

2.A perusal of the F.I.R reveals that the accused person is said to have borrowed a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- from the defacto complainant in the year 2017 in two instalments for doing business. Though on several occasions, demand was made by the defacto complainant, he had not acceded to his request. On 07.12.2022 at about 9.00 a.m, the accused is said to have contacted the defacto complainant over phone and threatened him with dire consequences.

3.According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, a bare perusal of the F.I.R indicates that the complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive as it is preferred after a period of six years from the date of alleged borrowal knowing fully well that a civil suit is barred by limitation. Therefore, the defacto complainant has given a criminal colour to the alleged business transaction. He further submitted that mere non-payment of money would not attract the offence under Section 420 I.P.C.

4.The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that the entrustment of property is the basic requirement to consider an offence under Section 406 I.P.C and in the absence of any material to substantiate that the property was entrusted and the same was dishonestly misappropriated, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under of I.P.C. The learned senior counsel had further submitted that for prosecuting the petitioner under Section 507 of I.P.C, threat must be real and by virtue of such threat, the person who had complained of such threat would have been frightened by such threat to bring home the offence under I.P.C.

5.The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that only if the communication is anonymous in nature, Section 507 I.P.C can be invoked. However, when the F.I.R discloses that the alleged communication was made by the accused person from his mobile number, I.P.C cannot be invoked. The learned Senior Counsel had relied upon a decision of this Court reported in2021 SCC Online Mad 6458 ( Mathivanan Vs. Inspector of Police and others ) and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 823 (Rikhab Birani and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another) and(2024) 12 SCC 483 ( Lalit Chaturvedi and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ) in support of his submissions.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that the F.I.R prima facie discloses the offences under Sections 406 , 420 and 507 I.P.C. Whether the petitioner has threatened the defacto complainant through mobile phone or not is the subject matter of investigation. He further submitted that he has got call recording to indicate that he had been threatened by the accused person. He had also defamed the religion of the defacto complainant. When the F.I.R discloses a prima facie case as against the accused, this Court may not interdict with the investigation process. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7.Heard both sides and perused the material records.

8.A perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that the accused is said to have borrowed Rs.60,00,000/- from the defacto complainant in the year 2017 for running a business and he had not returned the same and committed the breach of trust. It is alleged that on 07.12.2022, the accused had threatened the defacto complainant through by mobile phone with dire consequences.

This is the sum and s