Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37898 Court No. - 27 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 486 of 2015 Applicant :- Indra Narayan Jha And Anr. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Vivek Manishi Shukla Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. The case has been called out in the revised list. 2. As per office report dated 25.11.2016, the notice was personally served upon respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Shri Vivek Manishi Shukla has filed his vakalatnama on their behalf but he is neither present in the revised list nor any request has been made on his behalf for adjournment of the case. He has also not filed any counter affidavit though he has filed vakalatnama in the year 2017. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA appearing for the State. 4. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with following main prayer:- " Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and may further be pleased to set aside the impugned orders dated 16.09.2014 and 13.01.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No. 1623/2013 under Section 406/504/506 IPC relating to Police Station Ishanagar, Lakhimpur Kheri." 5. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.12.2013/13.12.2013 a complaint case was filed by the respondent no. 2 before the Court of A.C.J.M. under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. alleging therein a partnership deed was executed on 21.09.2010 between the parties i.e. the applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 for the construction of house under the scheme of Manniya Kashiram Sahari Awash Yojana, Gola Gokarnnath, Lakhimpur Kheri. The applicant no. 1 had paid only Rs. 8 lakhs against the amount of Rs. 28,44,000/- and when the respondent no. 2 asked for the payment of dues, he was threatened by the applicants. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that neither any partnership deed in existence nor it has been filed alongwith the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2. Regarding non existence of partner-ship deed, a specific plea has been made in para no. 14 of the present application. 7. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 was a mate/clerk in the office of proprietorship firm of applicant no. 1 and he looked after construction work and was paid a sum of Rs. 61,33,000/- to meet expenditure incurred in the work and in support of his submission, account ledger has been enclosed as annexure no. 4 to the present case. 8. It is further submitted that if there is any dispute regarding the payment of money or recovery of money, the respondent no. 2 had a remedy to file a suit for recovery of money and filing an FIR or initiating criminal proceeding by giving criminal colour to a civil dispute is not permissible under the law. 9. It is further submitted that the learned Court below without application of mind had issued summons against the applicant nos. 1and 2 under Sections 406 IPC and 504, 506 IPC respectively whereas none of the ingredients of the said sections are attracted in the present case. 10. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants but unable to dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant that criminal colour has been given to a civil dispute in the present case. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that Section 406 of IPC is not applicable in the present case as per the law settled in the case of Kunti Devi Vs. State of U.P ( 2023) 6 SCC 109, wherein it has been held that a breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Further, merely the allegation of failure to keep up promise, held will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. In the present case, a bald allegation has been made by the respondent no. 2 in his complaint that there was a partnership agreement dated 21.09.2013. It appears that the copy of the same has not been enclosed alongwith the complaint nor there was any such allegation that there was fraudulent or dishonest intention since the very beginning of the transaction. 12. As far as section 504 and 506 of IPC are concerned, the said sections are also not attracted in the present case reason being merely bald allegation has been made and no material in respect of such allegation has been placed or enclosed alongwith the complaint. It is also not certain whether any such incident occurred or not particularly in the circumstances, the basis of complaint alleged partnership deed dated 12.09.2010, which appears to be not in existence as the same was not shown to be enclosed alongwith the complaint. 13. In any case, for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that there was any partnership deed between the parties and there is any violation of terms and conditions of the partnership deed regarding the payment then the respondent no. 2 has a remedy to file a civil suit and giving criminal colour to a civil dispute is not permissible under the law as per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Binod Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and another ( 2014) 10 SCC 663. The relevant extract of the same is quoted hereinbelow:- "10. In Indian Oil Corporation versus NEPC India Limited, this Court has summarized the principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings as under:-(SCC pp. 747-48, para 12) "12.The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few- Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd (1996) 5 SCC 591; State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi,(1999) 3 SCC 259; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd(2000) 3 SCC 269 [pic]Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque( 2005) 1 SCC 122. The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. "11. Referring to the growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases, in paragraphs (13) and (14) of the Indian Oil Corporation's case (supra), it was held as under:- "13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, [pic]leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sugar Suri v. State of U.P., this Court observed : (SCC p. 643. para 8) ''8....It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.' 14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may." 14. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, the impugned orders dated 16.09.2014 and 13.01.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- III, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No. 1623/2013 Under Section 406/504/506 IPC are hereby set-aside. 15. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 Ashish Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench