In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Reserved On: 09.04.2026 Pronounced On: 28.04.2026 Deepak Chopra and Another ... Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab and Another ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present: Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent No.1.

Mr.Munish Gulati, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. This petition under Section 428 of ‘the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973’ has been filed for the quashing of FIR No. 174 dated 24.08.2018, Police Station Mataur, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali). The above-mentioned FIR has been lodged for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 420 [120-B added later on] of ‘the Indian Penal Code, 1860’, hereinafter being referred to as “IPC” only.

2. Heard.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that a bare perusal of the contents of the FIR itself makes it abundantly clear that the only grievance of the complainant/respondent No.2, hereinafter being referred to as “respondent No.2” only, is that the petitioner No.1 had entered into a contract with the respondent No.2 for the construction of a showroom and on construction of above-mentioned showroom, the entire bills submitted by the respondent No.2 have not been cleared by the petitioner No.1. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, precisely speaking, the bills amounting to ₹83,68,772/- were raised on various occasions by the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 paid only a part thereof, i.e. a sum of ₹50,26,772/-. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of above the balance amount of ₹36,42,000/- has been claimed to be due by respondent No.2.

4. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the above-mentioned set of facts makes it abundantly clear that the dispute between the parties is a dispute of civil nature which comes within the purview, either a dispute for settlement of account or the recovery of money, and thus, the cause of action for filing a civil suit either for rendition of account or for recovery is the proper remedy available to the respondent No.2.

5. As per learned counsel for the petitioners since right from the very beginning, on various occasions, different payments have been made by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2, this inference cannot be drawn that there was an element of cheating either at the time of entering into contract or at any later stage and thus, the filing of FIR for the purpose of recovery of money is nothing, but a misuse of process of law. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the dispute between the parties being purely a dispute of civil nature, i.e. failure to meet the obligation under a contract, the FIR under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed.

6. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present case with regard to recovery of above-mentioned amount a civil suit was filed by the respondent No.2, and that the suit for recovery has already been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the above-mentioned civil suit the respondent No.2 was examined, as his own witness, and during the course of deposition, the respondent No.2 admitted that he received a sum of ₹1,08,91,072/- from the petitioners. With regard to above-mentioned contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the copy of judgment dated 15.12.2023, passed in Civil Suit No. 605 of 2019 titled as “New Tech Builders v. Deepak Chopra and Others’.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.2 the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 is not a pure dispu