p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2887 of 2024 Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Gahlot …. Petitioner Mr. Subir Kumar Palit, Senior Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Panda, ASC Mr. B.D. Das, Advocate for the Informant A N D CRLMC No.427 of 2023 Suryamani Tripathy …. Petitioner Mr. Millan Kanungo, Senior Advocate along with Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. S. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING: 30.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:19.06.2026 1. Both the CRLMCs are clubbed together for disposal by the following common judgment. 2. Instant CRLMCs have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.T. Case Nos. 66 AFR p. 2 of 2023 and C.T. Case No.6000 of 2021 respectively arising out of E.O.W. P.S. Case No.14 of 2021 registered under Section(s) 419, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the I.P.C. pending before the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID Act, Cuttack on the grounds stated therein. 3. CRLMC No.2887 of 2024: The petitioner herein, a Central Government employee has questioned the jurisdiction of the EOW and also the maintainability of the criminal proceeding initiated against him vide C.T. Case No. 66 of 2023 on the grounds inter alia that any such action is illegal and hence, liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. The jurisdiction of the EOW is challenged in view of EOW Circular No.01 of 2019 issued by Odisha Police, Economic Offences Wing, Bhubaneswar dated 30th November, 2019. The above challenge is on the premise that the EOW does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction since the amount of financial fraud stands less than Rs.1 crore. The further plea is that the dispute inter se parties is civil in nature, hence, the criminal action pursuant to registration of EOW P.S. Case No.14 of 2021 is legally not tenable. Furthermore, according to the petitioner, his direct involvement is not proved in so far as the transactions in question are concerned even by considering the materials on record and therefore, the proceeding pending before the learned Court below shall have to be quashed by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. p. 3 4. CRLMC No.427 of 2023: In the instant case, the petitioner similarly challenged the criminal prosecution more or less on the self-same grounds by claiming that it is a civil dispute between the parties. As per the petitioner, the EOW has no jurisdiction to investigate as the amount of financial fraud is less than the threshold limit. It is claimed that the earlier complaint before the Delhi Police revealed an amount less than Rs.1 crore, however, in order to bring it within the sweep of the EOW, a fraud of Rs.1.17 Crore is alleged, which is not supported by any evidence and explanation offered by the informant. Furthermore, the criminal action against the petitioner calls for interference since it is a civil dispute duly acknowledged by the Delhi Police after enquiry. Under the above circumstances and considering the nature of dispute between the parties, not only a criminal prosecution is not to lie, but also the EOW lacks jurisdiction to undertake inquiry and investigation since the financial fraud is less than Rs.1 crore. 5. The informant has been impleaded as opposite party No.2 in CRLMC No.2887 of 2024 and he is said to have lodged the FIR registered as EOW P.S. Case No.14 dated 28th October, 2001. 6. Apart from the grounds pleaded on record, delay in lodging of the FIR is alleged by the petitioners. It is claimed that the alleged transactions leading to the lodging of the FIR are more than four years old as the cause of action commenced in the year 2017 and there is no proper explanation offered by the informant to explain the delay. Page 4 of 29 7. The facts are similar in both the cases and therefore, it is not elaborately described for the sake of brevity. 8. Gone through the contents of the FIR at Annexure-1. The details of the circumstances leading to the lodging of the FIRs are described therein by the informant. The entirety of the transactions having taken place between the parties stands narrated in the FIR. On a reading of the report dated 28th October, 2021 lodged by the informant, it is made to understand that the transactions were allegedly effected towards issuance of work orders in favour of the informant. The nature of work orders is also described in the FIR. All such details of the payments made from the side of the informant have been disclosed in the said report. After the transactions had taken place, according to the informant, no advance amount as promised was deposited in his account, nor was any single work assigned to them. Even after the work orders were handed over at the instant of the petitioners and others, entertaining a doubt and on an inquiry by the informant, it was revealed that the entire episode was a false and fraudulent one as the accused persons impersonated themselves as officers of RAW, PWD etc. and thereby cheated him in respect of an amount of Rs.1.17 crore and besides that the documents received by them for the contractual works were also found to be fake. It is alleged further that the accused persons committed fraud and misappropriated the amount received with a false promise of providing high amount of contracts to the informant and when the latter approached the former p. 5 demanding its refund, one of them, namely, Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Gahlot threatened him with dire consequences in case any legal action is initiated against them. Precisely the above are the facts alleged in the FIRs alleging involvement of the petitioners and others in committing the fraud and cheating the informant. 9. The informant is the proprietor of M/s. Rashtriya Stainless Steel and in that capacity, he had engaged himself with transactions and is said to have made the payments to the accused persons. 10. Perused the counter affidavit filed by the State and also the rejoinder of the petitioner to the same in CRLMC No.2887 of 2024. 11. Whether the EOW has the jurisdiction in view of the Circular dated 30th November, 2019 of the Odisha Police EOW, Bhubaneswar, wherein a threshold limit is fixed to investigate a financial fraud of Rs.1 crore and more? If at all the allegations in the FIR do relate to a civil dispute and therefore, the criminal prosecution does not lie? The above are the questions to be determined by this Court with reference to the materials on record. The ground of delay attributed to the informant is also raised by the petitioners and it is also to be examined. But primarily the challenge to the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is based on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the EOW and the nature of litigation claiming it to be a civil liability. 12. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Page 6 of 29 13. According to Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in CRLMC No.2887 of 2024, the EOW does not have the jurisdiction to take up the investigation as the amount involved in the alleged fraud is less than Rs.1 crore in view of the EOW Circular No.01 of 2019. Similar is the argument advanced by Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRLMC No.427 of 2023. The contention is that the EOW could not have entertained the FIR and ought not to have proceeded with the investigation when the threshold limit is below Rs.1 crore. Such submission is made with reference to the earlier complaint lodged with the Delhi Police. Referring to a copy of the said complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi by opposite party No.2 as at Annexure-9 to the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner filed in CRLMC No.2887 of 2024, it is contended by Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate that therein the allegation against the accused persons was about a conspiracy by impersonation and a financial fraud of Rs.90 lac but how it has become Rs.1.17 crore has not been explained away. The further submission is that the same incident has been reported to the EOW but without any material to show involvement of a financial fraud gone up to Rs.1.17 crore. It is alleged that only to ensure that the EOW acquires the jurisdiction, a higher amount is alleged and therefore, on the basis of the earlier complaint, the EOW cannot have the jurisdiction when the amount of financial fraud was alleged for an amount of Rs.90 lac. By comparing the facts alleged in the p. 7 complaint before the Delhi Police and the FIR, it is contended by Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate that the EOW lacks jurisdiction pecuniary-wise and therefore, the criminal action and investigation initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed all the more when the Delhi Police found the dispute between the parties to be civil in nature. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the other petitioner reiterated the above plea vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of the EOW with reference to the Circular dated 30th November, 2019 of EOW, Bhubaneswar and argued that the transactions, if any, between the parties relate to a civil liability and nothing else and cannot be given a colour of criminality. 14. On the contrary, Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State would submit that the EOW has the jurisdiction to deal with the FIR and has rightly taken up investigation considering the financial fraud alleged by the complainant. Such submission is made with reference to the FIR lodged by the informant, wherein the fraud is alleged for an amount of Rs.1.17 crore. Mr. Panda, learned ASC further submits that irrespective of the earlier complaint before the Delhi Police, since the allegation is about a fraud for an amount above Rs.1 crore alleged against the petitioners and others, it was well within the powers of the EOW to enquire into and investigate upon. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the informant, namely, opposite party No.2 in CRLMC No.2887 of 2024 submits that the EOW has the powers to p. 8 inquire into the allegations of financial fraud in view of the FIR, wherein, the amount of such fraud stands at Rs.1.17 crore. Referring to the transactions between the parties, the documents of which are made available to this Court, it is further submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel that there is no illegality in taking up investigation after the FIR was lodged when the amount of financial fraud is above the threshold limit. 15. One more plea is advanced from the side of the petitioners with a claim that the FIR before the EOW cannot be entertained as it is a second complaint to the previous one before the Delhi Police. Mr. Palit, learned Senior Advocate submits that on the self-same allegations when the first complaint was received and it was dealt with by the Delhi Police and the opinion therein was that the dispute was civil in nature leaving the parties to avail appropriate remedy under law, the FIR before the EOW should not have been entertained. The contention is that a second complaint on the same set of allegations is legally not permissible and therefore, on such ground, the criminal prosecution shall have to be quashed. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the other accused similarly submits that an inquiry was held by the Delhi Police and therefore, after its culmination, the FIR before the EOW is not maintainable. Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State, however, submits that the earlier complaint was not registered and no investigation was taken up by the Delhi Police and though an opinion was formed p. 9 that the dispute is civil in nature, it allowed the parties to avail such other remedy even by lodging a complaint before the State Police. Not only that, according to Mr. Panda, learned ASC, the Delhi Police transferred the case to the EOW and therefore, the FIR lodged by the complainant is no second complaint and hence, the contention advanced from the side of the petitioners is misconceived. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the informant equally submits that no detailed inquiry and investigation have taken place with the complaint received by the Delhi Police, but in the meantime, the EOW on the basis of the FIR lodged, swung into action and therefore, the plea that the report is a second complaint on the self-same allegations is entirely misplaced. 16. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on and referred to a host of citations some of which are relevant and are to be discussed hereafter. 17. Whether a jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand is to be examined with reference to the landmark judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vrs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. In the case (supra), the Apex Court laid down the guidelines, but not an exhaustive one with illustrations where extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised in the backdrop of the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. under Chapter-XIV and principles p. 10 of law enunciated by its earlier decisions and for a better appreciation, the same are extracted hereinbelow: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose p. 11 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 17.1. In the above decision, it has also been cautioned that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that a Court would be unjustified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, finally concluding that the p. 12 extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction does not confer an arbitrary power to act according to the Court’s whim or caprice. The aforesaid guidelines have been summarized by way of illustrations to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice with an observation of the Apex Court that it would not be possible to formulate precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelized and inflexible stipulations or rigid formula and to provide an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powers should be exercised. Keeping in view the principles enunciated in the decision (supra), the Court shall have to consider whether, in the case of the petitioners, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be invoked. 17.2. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Katikia, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a case law in Lalita Kumari Vrs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others (2014) 2 SCC 1 to contend that no criminal offence is made out for inquiry and investigation by the EOW. In the above decision, the Apex Court with reference to Section 154 Cr.P.C. elaborately discussed and outlined what should be the course of action and duty of the police upon receiving the FIR, which is to be acted upon if revealing a cognizable offence to have been committed and the manner of investigation. It has also been held therein that there is a distinction between inquiry and preliminary inquiry with reference to Sections 2(g), 159, 202 and 340 Cr.P.C in juxtaposition to Section 154 Cr.P.C and held that any inquiry as per Section 2(g) Cr.P.C. is relatable to a judicial p. 13 act and not for the steps taken by the police, which are either investigation after the stage of Section 154 Cr.P.C. or termed as preliminary inquiry held prior to the registration of the FIR, even though no entry in the Station Diary has been made. With such other aspects being examined in the case (supra), the Apex Court summarized the law in the following words, such as, (i) registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, where no preliminary inquiry is permissible; (ii) if the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not; (iii) if the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered and in cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the informant forthwith and not later than one week disclosing the reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further; (iv) a Police Officer cannot avoid his duty of registering a FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed and action must be taken against such Officers who do not registered the same, if the information received discloses an offence to have been committed of cognizable in nature; (v) the scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received only to ascertain whether the information revealed any cognizable offence committed with a conclusion at the end that as to what type and in which cases, preliminary p. 14 inquiry is to be conducted shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case and that may include matrimonial/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption etc., which are only illustrations and again not exhaustive of all exigencies which could warrant such inquiry. The reference is made to the above decision only to flag the plea that the EOW did not hold a preliminary inquiry after the opinion formed by the Delhi Police that the complaint is related to a civil dispute and furthermore, when no cognizable offence(s) were shown to have been committed by the petitioners. 18. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the informant cited the following decisions, such as, Priti Saraf & another Vrs. State of NCT of Delhi and another in Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2021/SLP (Crl.) No. 6364 of 2019; Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vrs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another in Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025/SLP(Crl.) No.11642 of 2019; and M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021 to contended that on a reading of the FIR, when it discloses commission of cognizable offences considering the ingredients of the offences alleged, it cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations therein and as to whether the complaint and the facts alleged therein are true or false shall have to be tested on the basis of the evidence led during trial and simply because there is a civil remedy provided under law does not by itself oust initiation of a criminal action and p. 15 therefore, in view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the decisions (supra), this Court is to examine the plea regarding exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 19. In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), the Apex Court held and observed that the following steps should ordinarily determine the quashing of a criminal action invoking the power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C., such as; “20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.- (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?” p. 16 20. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court referred to the decision in R.P. Kapur Vrs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, wherein it has been observed in the following words, such as: “(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. (iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the p. 17 High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.” 20.1. Referring to the case (supra), the contention of Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the informant is that the FIR reveals cognizable offences to have been committed by the petitioners alleging fraud and therefore, it was right and justified on the part of the EOW to investigate into the allegations upon the FIR being lodged and hence, no case is made out for this Court to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 21. Admittedly, an amount of Rs.90 lac is alleged to have been received and misappropriated by the accused persons revealed from the complaint lodged before the Delhi Police and with the FIR lodged, it is shown at Rs.1.17 crore and therefore, the contentions advanced from the side of the petitioners are aimed at lack of jurisdiction for the EOW to take up investigation. Rather, the claim of the petitioners is that the fraud amount originally claimed by the informant is below the threshold limit and hence, the EOW does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the FIR and to take up investigation with respect to the alleged financial fraud. As earlier stated, the above plea of the petitioners is with reference to the EOW’s Circular dated 30th November, 2019. The State’s response is that the EOW is having powers to enquire into the allegation of fraud when the amount is alleged to be Rs.1.17 crore in the FIR itself. Page 18 of 29 21.1. It is made to understand that all the cases related to economic offences would be monitored by the EOW vide Home Department’s Resolution No.6885 dated 17th February, 2012 with the EOW, CID & CB declared as the Nodal Agency and as per Circular No.01 of 2012, the EOW shall take up cases of financial fraud of an amount of Rs.1 crore and more, whereas other cases are to be registered before the District Police. It is also mentioned therein that cases registered at the district are to be treated as Special Report cases, but such cases have no specific mention regarding categories of economic offences committed in the present time to be treated as such and considering the multitude and variety of the offences and the socio- economic changes, increased number of the economic offences being committed adversely impacting large section of the society and also economic health of the State, it was felt imperative to formulate a uniform criterion to treat various economic offences as Special Report cases to closely monitor investigation of such cases registered by the District Police. As to more categories of cases to be treated as Special Report cases involving the fraud amount of Rs.20 lac to be investigated upon by the District Police are also stated therein, however, leaving it to the discretion of the Superintendent of Police or Range DIG/IG to exercise discretion to declare any type of sensitive case as Special Report case. 21.2. Of course, in Circular No.01 of 2019 of the EOW, a limit of Rs.1 crore or above of financial fraud is fixed for p. 19 the EOW to take up investigation of financial fraud and referring to the same, it is alleged that any such enquiry and such investigation into the allegations made in the FIR lie beyond the jurisdiction of the EOW. No doubt, a Court may have to scrutinize whether the EOW has the powers to investigate into a particular case on the facts and pecuniary value involved. But, according to the Court, jurisdiction of the EOW is not strictly determined by the amount alone. At times, one has to fall back upon the nature of the allegations which may determine whether indulgence of the EOW is necessary. As it is normally understood, the EOW only handles complex organized and white-collar crimes. In the considered view of the Court, if a dispute is purely civil between the parties arising out of any contractual breach leading to recovery of property without the elements of deception or cheating involved, any such investigation taken up by the EOW shall have to be quashed. It is also the view of the Court that any such investigation by the EOW is not to be prematurely interfered with on the basis of the pecuniary value with reference to the amount of fraud. It may, however, be examined whether the EOW has improperly handled the case that falls below the financial threshold or is purely of a civil dispute so as to intervene and transfer it for enquiry by the District Police or even quash the same. Even if the amount falls below or above the threshold, a Court shall have to look at the factual matrix of the case involved. If a dispute is below the prescribed limit but involves complex financial fraud and ramifications, the EOW can still investigate. But for the said purpose, special p. 20 permission may have to be obtained by the EOW from the Range DIG/IG. In other words, it may be said that the monetary limit does not automatically exclude the EOW’s jurisdiction which it has and is possessed of when the dispute involves systemic cheating or large-scale financial fraud or it qualifies as an economic offence involving multiple victims of the crime. 22. In so far as the case at hand is concerned, according to the informant, fraud has been committed by the accused persons, mentioning in detail about the alleged transactions and transfers of money and even payments made in cash. The role of each of the petitioners is described in the FIR. Admittedly, it is not a case of massive fraud alleged by the informant. It is not a case of systemic embezzlement or organized fraud as made to be understood from the FIR lodged by the informant, who himself said to have been cheated on a promise of providing contractual works. It has been alleged by the informant that all the documents with respect to the issuance of work orders etc. found to be fake. It has even been alleged that the petitioner, namely, Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Gehlot introduced himself as an officer of RAW. It is entirely based on transactions inter se parties with allegations of fraud against the petitioners and others. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court regarding any large scale of fraud committed by the petitioners in duping anyone else besides the informant. If it is an extensive fraud involving many others apart from the complainant, it would well be within the powers of the p. 21 EOW to take up the investigation even when the financial limit is less than Rs.1 crore. It depends on the nature of the crime and its magnitude, which is to determine whether a particular case of forgery or financial fraud is to be investigated upon by the EOW irrespective of the threshold limit. Under the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the financial limit fixed by the EOW may have a role to play in the determination of its jurisdiction to entertain a report of fraud and to undertake investigation, but that alone is not a factor when it has the powers to deal with the cases where large-scale fraud by embezzlement is alleged. 23. Referring to the FIR, the amount of fraud is alleged at Rs.1.17 crore. From the earlier complaint, the said amount was shown at Rs.90 lac. Both sides have referred to the earlier complaint and the FIR to show that the threshold limit is or is not achieved. The transactions are referred to while claiming one way or the other vis-à-vis pecuniary value and the authority of the EOW to investigate into the financial fraud. The FIR is a means by which a criminal law is set into motion. On what basis did the informant arrive at an amount Rs.1.17 crore mentioned in the FIR needed an enquiry by the EOW when the earlier complaint claimed it for an amount of Rs.90 lac only. It is admittedly a fraud involving the parties. The FIR alleges cheating and fraud against the portioners and others and is not entirely a civil dispute, though it was such according to the Delhi Police. It is obviously not a case of any massive fraud with p. 22 involvement of a large number of victims allegedly committed. The EOW should be alive to the fact that the financial fraud is not of such a category or magnitude that requires its indulgence. At this juncture, when the investigation is initiated, considering the fact that the FIR is lodged with such an allegation made involving an amount of Rs.1.17 crore, this Court is to refrain itself from delving into the details of the transactions with necessary calculations made to determine the claim with respect to the threshold limit fixed rather than leave it for the EOW to examine and to take a decision whether it has the jurisdiction pecuniary- wise to investigate into the allegations of the financial fraud, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. In other words, this Court is not inclined to engage itself to determine the threshold limit that entitles the EOW to entertain the FIR and investigate when the amount of fraud differs in the complaint before the Delhi Police and the FIR. According to the Court, it should be left to the EOW to determine its jurisdiction and if the financial fraud limit is found to be less than Rs.1 crore to transfer the case to the District Police for investigation as in the view of the Court, it is not a civil dispute simpliciter since such fraud is alleged by impersonation and by such other means employed for duping the informant. This Court is, therefore, inclined to leave it to the EOW to verify the records to ascertain the amount of financial fraud with reference to the earlier complaint before the Delhi Police and thereafter, to take a decision whether it has the jurisdiction to take up the investigation in view of the threshold limit of Rs.1 crore and p. 23 if it is found to be less, to immediately transfer the investigation to the District Police. 24. As to the earlier complaint by the informant before the Delhi Police, it was lodged in the year 2020. The informant alleged mischief committed by the petitioners and others with allegations of fraud and cheating, but the opinion of the Delhi Police was that the dispute is civil in nature. With such an opinion formed, no further enquiry was held, directing the parties to go for a remedy approaching the civil court or lodging a complaint before the State Police. The complaint before the Delhi Police was followed by a preliminary enquiry apparently discontinued with such opinion and for no part of the cause of action to have taken place within its jurisdiction. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged with the EOW in 2021. The delay in lodging the complaint before the Delhi Police and finally lodging of the FIR in 2021 is questioned by the petitioners. But reasons have been assigned towards the delay by the informant and as to what prevailed upon him to lodge the complaint in 2021. The record reveals that the case was transferred to the EOW by the Delhi Police after the FIR was lodged. Even though a complaint was received by the Delhi Police, it did not culminate into a final report or a chargesheet. As earlier mentioned, a preliminary enquiry was held into the allegations of the complainant. According to the State, any such complaint to the Delhi Police is not an FIR either. 25. Mr. Katikia, learned counsel relies on the decision in T.T. Antony Vrs. State of Kerala and others (2001) 6 p. 24 SCC 181 to contend that the FIR being the second complaint before the EOW besides the one lodged with the Delhi Police, it could not have been entertained and investigated upon. In the decision (supra), the second FIR was lodged with a fresh case registered and under such circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court that there can be no second report and any such investigation. It has been held and observed therein that only information about the commission of a cognizable offence with an FIR lodged in the first place is to be entertained and all such subsequent ones shall be covered by Section 162 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, though there is a complaint, no case has been registered by the Delhi Police and only a preliminary enquiry was held, so to say and thereafter, it was discontinued on the premise that the dispute is civil in nature and no part of the cause of action took place within its jurisdiction. In absence of any such threadbare investigation with a final finding on the fraud alleged and whether the cognizable offences have been committed by the petitioners and others and with a preliminary enquiry, the investigation was not taken further by the Delhi Police, in the considered view of the Court, the FIR received by the EOW leading to the registration of the case cannot be said to be based on a second FIR. Upon receiving a complaint, a preliminary enquiry may be made in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vrs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others (2014) 2 SCC 1, but to investigate into the allegation, it depends on whether cognizable offences are made out or allegedly committed p. 25 and only in such a situation, a case is registered and it has not taken place upon receiving the complaint by the Delhi Police. Having said that, this Court is not inclined to hold that there is a second FIR before the EOW. So, the decision in T.T. Antony (supra) cited by Mr. Katikia, learned counsel with any such contention on the maintainability of the criminal action on the strength of the FIR alleging it to be a second complaint is liable to be rejected. 26. Similarly, the decision in Babubhai Vrs. State of Gujarat & others (2010) 12 SCC 254 is inapplicable as relied on by Mr. Katikia, learned counsel which is again based on the facts that two FIRs were lodged in respect of the same transaction which is impermissible in law. Had it been a case registered by the Delhi Police, the FIR before the EOW would have been treated as a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. But when no case is registered by the Delhi Police and only a preliminary enquiry was held with a complaint received from the informant, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the FIR before the EOW is a second one and hence, hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for both the sides on the entertainability of the FIR by the EOW alleging to be the second complaint, this Court is not in agreement with the plea advanced since no case was registered by the Delhi Police, rather, it transferred the complaint to the EOW at a subsequent point of time which led to the registration of a case for investigation. Page 26 of 29 27. This Court is aware of the decision in Shikhar Chemicals Vrs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1643 to the effect that one is to pursue a civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of money and should not be permitted to institute criminal proceedings to achieve the desired result. This Court is also alive to the settled position of law decided in Priti Saraf and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra) on the limitations in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. From the side of the petitioners, it is claimed that the dispute is civil in nature but criminality is alleged by the informant. If a dispute is over a contract between the parties and the recovery of the money payable under the contract without any such criminal mischief being alleged, in such a case, it has to be held that there is a civil liability to be discharged with. Any complaint lodged alleging cheating, but when the dispute is entirely rested on a civil contract, law is well settled that it has to be quashed for the reason that the person liable under the contract cannot be forced to part with the money through a criminal prosecution. Law does not allow any such action when the dispute is purely civil in nature. But when fraud is alleged with mens rea and commission of an offence cognizable in nature may arise out of a contract, notwithstanding any such remedy under the law to realize and recover the outstanding dues payable, a criminal action is also to lie. It depends on the nature of allegations made in the FIR and where it is claimed that fraud is employed, a criminal prosecution shall follow suit even though the informant has an option to go for a civil p. 27 remedy. The petitioners have been accused of impersonation and fraud. It is also alleged that the documents were manufactured since found to be fake as it was in relation to work orders purportedly issued. The accused persons managed the transfer of money from the informant on a promise to provide him high value contractual work, but all the documents allegedly handed over found to be fake and, hence, the initial complaint with Delhi Police and was followed by the FIR. With such allegations in the FIR, it cannot be said that the dispute is only confined to a contract between the parties and civil in nature. This Court finds from the FIR that apart from such other mischiefs alleged against the petitioners, fraud is claimed with a conspiracy. It has been alleged in the FIR that the petitioner in CRLMC No.2887 of 2024 impersonated himself as an officer of RAW and even a lady officer as a Treasury Officer. When such is the nature of allegations in the FIR, it cannot be claimed that the dispute is only civil. The mischief and the element of criminality is prima facie revealed from the FIR which is to be investigated upon by the EOW if in case it is to continue with the same after a decision on the threshold limit. So, the conclusion of the Court is that the criminal action initiated against the petitioners cannot be brought to an end on any such ground by claiming that it is just a civil dispute between the parties based on the contract. 28. This Court has taken judicial notice of the Apex Court’s decision in Arshad Neyaz Khan Vrs. State of Jharkhand and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 arising out of p. 28 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3606 of 2024 dated 24th September, 2024, as therein, it has been held and concluded that the criminal action was liable to be set aside as none of the offences alleged was made out and it was with a malafide intent found to have been initiated contrary to the decision in State of Haryana and others Vrs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The above citation is not applicable to the case of the petitioners being distinguishable on facts. It is not that the complaint was lodged before the Delhi Police with a criminal intent to harass the petitioners and other accused persons nor was it with the lodging of the FIR before the EOW. The truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR are to be looked into by the EOW or the District Police as the case may be during investigation. On the face of the record, no malfeasance is proved against the informant and it cannot possibly be attributed to him alleging any such malafide intent only to criminally prosecute the petitioners and to harass them. When from the FIR, it is prima facie made out that there is fraud and by fraudulent means the informant was made to part with the money which he failed to recover and the transactions are alleged to have been followed by the documents claimed to be fake, it needs a criminal investigation. Since no case was registered by the Delhi Police, only it conducted a preliminary enquiry, the informant failing to recover the amount from the petitioners was left with no choice except lodging the FIR with the EOW. Of course, further investigation in view of the discussion earlier held is left to the decision of the EOW on p. 29 its pecuniary limit prescribed as per the Circular or else to transfer the case to the District Police. 29. Accordingly, it is ordered. 30. In the result, the CRLMCs stand disposed of with the observations made and directions issued hereinabove for compliance by the EOW rejecting the plea of the petitioners for a complete discharge on any such grounds pleaded on record. It is further directed that the EOW shall take a decision on its pecuniary jurisdiction with reference to the FIR and other materials relevant for the purpose at the earliest, preferably within a month from today, paving the way for the investigation to be held in accordance with law. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok/Balaram