Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66841 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33232 of 2024 Applicant :- M/S Raj Tours And Travelers Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh, Saroj Kumar Dubey,Vineet Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jyoti Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing the order dated 30-05-2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 360 of 2022 in complaint case no. 2835 of 2016 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Vishwa Bharti Public School). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant respectfully submits that the applicant, being the sole proprietor of M/s Raj Tour and Travells, entered into a transport contract with opposite party no. 2, an educational institution at BEETA-1, Greater Noida, for providing semi-deluxe buses for the academic session 2013–14 to facilitate the conveyance of students and staff. It is contended that although the applicant regularly plied his services under the said agreement, the institution failed to pay the agreed charges despite repeated verbal demands and legal notices dated 29.05.2014 and 01.06.2015. The institution only gave evasive replies dated 22.11.2014 and 09.06.2015, without clearing the dues. Consequently, the applicant filed a criminal complaint on 24.09.2015 detailing the breach and financial loss. The Magistrate concerned took cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. and proceeded accordingly. When the trial court passed an order dated 07.07.2022 not favourable to the applicant, he preferred Criminal Revision No. 360 of 2022 on 30.09.2022, which was subsequently dismissed by the revisional court on 30.05.2024, thereby upholding the order of the trial court. The applicant has now approached this Court to challenge both the said orders. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the impugned orders suffer from no infirmity and require no interference by this Court. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute in question essentially pertains to non-payment of service charges under a contractual agreement. The nature of the allegations and the relief sought by the applicant clearly indicate that it is a civil dispute concerning recovery of money, for which appropriate civil remedies are available. It further appears that the applicant has already plied all the buses and rendered the contracted services, and the dispute arises only in regard to the alleged unpaid dues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021, decided on 02.09.2021; in Mitesh Kumar Jha vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2021, decided on 26.10.2021; and in Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2011, decided on 25.10.2021, that criminal prosecution must not be allowed to be used as an instrument of harassment, for seeking private vendetta, or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. The Court must exercise its jurisdiction to ensure that criminal law is not misused for oblique purposes. 6. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the orders passed by the courts below so as to warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Hence, the instant application cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad