IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9114 of 2025

VINAY

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Mithlesh Prasad Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Deepak Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.

None for the respondent No.2.

ORDER

This petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur, whereby the petitioner’s application for discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in respect of the offence punishable under Section

420 of the Indian Penal Code, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition, in a nutshell, are that

as per the prosecution case, complainant and present petitioner are known to each other and were engaged in the business of 'Banana Trading'. The complainant is running a registered firm under the name and style of “Rajasthan Banana Supplier”, whereas the petitioner is the proprietor of “Maa Durga Kela Supplier”. It is alleged that during the period from the year

2020 to 2021, the complainant supplied bananas to the petitioner in the course of business transactions. Despite such supply, an amount of approximately Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) allegedly remained outstanding and payable by the present petitioner to the complainant. In order to discharge the said liability, the petitioner allegedly issued four cheques in favour of the complainant; however, upon presentation, the said cheques were dishonoured by the bank. Thereafter, the complainant lodged an FIR at the concerned police station, on the basis of which the police registered a case for the aforesaid offences. During the pendency of the criminal case bearing RCT No.178/2023, the petitioner filed an application under Section 239 of CrPC for discharge from charge under Section 420 of IPC before learned Trial Court; however, the same came to be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that police initially registered the case under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC and filed the charge- sheet accordingly. Since the offence under Section 409 of IPC is triable by the Court of Session, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, which upon perusal of the record, allowed the application under Section 239 of CrPC and discharged the petitioner from the charge under Section 409 of IPC. Thereafter, the case was remanded to learned Magistrate for trial of the offence under Section 420 of IPC. It is further submitted that Respondent th No.2 subsequently filed a recovery suit for Rs.91,59,032/- before the IV Civil Judge, Senior Division (Commercial Court), Burhanpur, registered as Case No.COMMS/12/2023 on 31.07.2023, which demonstrates mala fide intention. The dispute between the parties is purely commercial in nature, arising out of business transactions between two banana traders. It is further contended that the amount was received in the course of business and cheques were issued towards business liability; thus, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of IPC, particularly dishonest intention at the inception, are absent. It is further contended that respondent No.2 has simultaneously initiated civil and criminal proceedings for the same cause of action, amounting to abuse of the process of law. In view of the petitioner’s discharge from the offence under Section 409 of IPC and absence of any prima facie case under Section 420 of IPC, continuation of the criminal proceedings is unwarranted. It is, therefore, prayed that impugned order dated 31.01.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur, be set-aside and petitioner be discharged from the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the State