Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14087
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Baljinder Singh Sandhu, J
URN: CRLMP / 3910U / 2026
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2181/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Munender Singh
For the Respondents: Ramesh Dewasi, Shambhoo Singh
Parity in quashing of an FIR cannot be claimed by a petitioner whose role is that of a principal accused involved in forgery and misappropriation, even if the FIR was quashed for other co-accused whose involvement was not established.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of FIR - Parity with Co-accused - Where the role of the petitioner is distinct and involves active criminality such as forgery and misappropriation, the benefit of parity cannot be claimed even if proceedings against other co-accused (such as the company and its directors) were quashed on the grounds of the dispute being civil in nature. (Para 15, 18)
(B) Criminality vs. Civil Dispute - Forgery and Misappropriation - While a commercial transaction may be inherently civil, the act of forging purchase orders to divert material for sale in the open market constitutes a criminal offense, distinguishing the act from a mere contractual breach. (Para 17, 19)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the quashing of the FIR on the grounds of parity with co-accused whose proceedings were previously quashed by a coordinate bench.
Order
The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of FIR No.24/2022 registered at Police Station Dhanmandi, District Udaipur for the offences under Section 420 and 406 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is of civil nature and involvement of the petitioner has not been found. Further he relied upon the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRLMP No.3002/2022 dated 08.08.2024, by which the proceedings against the other co-accused namely the company as well as Directors have been quashed and set aside.
He further submits that his case is akin to the co-accused and hence the FIR deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the case is different from the case of other co-accused and the Coordinate Bench has not quashed the proceedings against the present petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted a factual report dated 19.03.2026, the same is taken on record. He further submits that after investigation, involvement of the petitioner has been found and he further submits that the petitioner is the one who has forged the bill and thereafter diverted the material and thereafter sold in the open market.
This Court has considered the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner as well as gone through the record and the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 08.08.2024. The Coordinate Bench has quashed the proceedings qua company as well as Directors on the ground that the same was a commercial transaction and the dispute relates to supply of Generic Ferro Manganese by the complainant to M/s Rimjhim on the basis of the purchase order issued by the two ex-employees of the company. It is also recorded that there is nothing on record to show that the goods were entrusted to the petitioner company or it had control or possession of the goods. The relevant paras of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench are as follows:
“13. The alleged purchase order was placed by one Yash Chauhan and Hari Narayan, who are stated now to be ex-employees of the Company. Stand taken is that they have forged the purchase order. The original purchase order and forged one have same reference number, and two separate purchase orders cannot have same reference number. It transpires that the Petitioner no.1, i.e., the Company, on discovery of the said forgery, subsequently also lodged a police complaint dated 28.12.2021 against Yash Chauhan and Hari Narayan, followed by a criminal complaint under section200 of the Cr.P.C before the competent court at Gurugram.
14. It is also noteworthy that there is no other formal written communication between Petitioner Company and the Complainant regarding the said purchase order, except the purported purchase order prepared by Yash Chauhan and Hari Narayan. A legal notice dated 22.12.2021 was also served to the Company for recovery of money.
16. The controversy at the heart of this FIR is, therefore, inherently civil, stemming from a commercial transaction. The entire dispute relates to supply of HC Ferro Manganese by the Complainant to M/s Rimjhim Ispaat on the basis of a purchase order, forged or not, issued by two ex-employees of the Company. The FIR seems to be a coercive recovery tactic to create pressure for causing recovery of money. The complainant himself acknowledged prior discussion/negotiations between his firm and the accused company. The core issue is the alleged non-payment for delivered goods by the petitioners. FIRs in such purely contractual disputes blur the line between civil and criminal law. Misuse of police powers by criminalizing what should be resolved in a civil court deserves to be deprecated, to say the least.
17.Moreover, to justify criminal charges under Sections 420(cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust), there must be inducement to cheat and a clear demonstration of dishonest or fraudulent intent from the beginning of t
