1 2025:CGHC:24776-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 855 of 2025 1 - Chandra Kishore Tiwari S/o Late Rewaram Sharma Aged About 70 Years Resident Of Near Office Of Municipal Corporation, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Ps And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Atul Tiwari S/o Late Rewaram Sharma Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Near Office Of Municipal Corporation, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Ps And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Alok Tiwari S/o Late Rewaram Sharma Aged About 65 Years Resident Of 10 Udhaan Path, Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Aarti Deshmukh W/o Shri Manoj Deshmukh Aged About 35 Years Resident Of H.No. H24, Sinchai Colony, Near Pratappur Naka, Ambikapur, Ps And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 2 - Shri Shiv Shankar Tiwari S/o Late Rajendra Nath Tiwari Aged About 41 Years Resident Of Bauripara, Ambikapur, Ps And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. M.L. Saket, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, PL For Resp No.2 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocates RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.06.18 11:57:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru,J 17/06/2025 1. This Cr.M.P under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS and in exercise thereof be pleased to admit the matter, call for the records of unregistered case culminated into impugned order dated 19/02/2025 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur in unregistered complaint case, parties being Shivshankar Tiwari v. Chandra Kishore Tiwari & ors., directing registration of FIR against the petitioner under relevant sections and consequent to which impugned FIR (Annexure P-12) has been registered by respondent No.1 under Sections 318 (4), 319 (2), 320, 322, 336 (3), 338, 340 of BNSS and after perusal of the record and giving opportunity of hearing to parties, quash not only the order dated 19/02/2025 (Annexure-P/10) and also consequent FIR No. 0122/2025 (Annexure-P/12) registered with Police Station City Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) as all these exercise is only abuse of process of Court and abuse of process of 3 law and apart from, in violation of petitioners’ fundamental and constitutional rights in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners and respondent No.2/Complainant had entered into a partnership under Deed of Partnership dated 01/09/2013 for running the business in the name and style of ‘M/s Tiwari Construction’. Both the parties were running the partnership and carrying out the activities of construction and for effective management of the firm, respondent No. 2 has also been given a power of attorney for carrying out the transaction. Subsequently, the complainant/Respondent no.2 made a complaint under Sections 175 (3) of the BNSS before CJM, Ambikapur, against the petitioner stating that when he was given as Power of Attorney, many work were executed by him and many tenders were given to their company. It was alleged in the complaint that for executing certain work for the firm, goods of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- were taken from the market, which were used for the work of firm. It was alleged in the complaint when respondent No.2 asked the petitioners for payment of the said amount, then they denied. Subsequently, on the application of respondent no. 2, an hold was put on the account of Firm. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur after considering the complaint of respondent No.2, has directed to register the FIR against the petitioners. Hence, this CRMP. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the action on the part of the learned CJM and consequent registration of FIR, is abuse of process of Court and abuse of process of law. He would next submit that during the course of inquiry, the police authorities have found that respondent No2 has given his resignation and got retired from the firm of M/s Tiwari Construction and out of his own, given letter dated 05/01/2025 to the Bank i.e. Union of India for holding the bank account. He would further submit that while working for the firm, respondent No.2 has started acting contrary to the interest of the firm and acted in the manner of causing loss to the business of firm and earning profit for himself. When such fact came to the knowledge of the petitioners that respondent No.2 is not following rights and liabilities of the partners as per relevant provisions and as such, the petitioners made a complaint giving various details. Even respondent No.2 has involved himself in illegally grabbing the amount of Rs. 1,50,01,315/- by fraud and cheating etc. The petitioners have again made a complaint on 22/10/2024 along with supporting document, however, respondent, police have not taken any action on the report of the petitioners and contrary to the same, the the Court of CJM has directed to register the FIR against the petitioners. Therefore, the dispute as raised at best can be termed as civil dispute by and between the parties, which ought not to have been allowed to be settled by a criminal case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that respondent No. 2 made a complaint to the police on 14/08/2023 5 inter alia on the allegations that the petitioners by playing fraud misappropriated the amount of the partnership firm and by false and fabricated documents have removed respondent No.2 from the partnership firm and they have refused to pay the amount spent by the respondent No.2 in respect of the business transcation. He would submit that the entire action of the petitioners is contrary to the provisions of the Partnership Act. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. From the perusal of the pleadings and documents, it is quite vivid that complainant/respondent No.2 and the petitioners were running a partnership firm under Deed of Partnership dated 01/09/2013 for running the business in the name and style of ‘M/s Tiwari Construction’. On account of some business dispute between the partners, they filed complaint and counter complaint against each others. From the said dispute, it is manifest that prima facie, the same is purely of civil nature. In the said dispute the learned CJM by order impugned dated 19/02/2025 (Page -98-103 of Annexure-P/10) directed for registration of FIR against the petitioners. 7. At this juncture, we would like to emphasize on the need for a Magistrate to be cautious in examining whether the facts of the case disclose a civil or a criminal wrong. Attempts at initiating vexatious criminal proceedings should be thwarted early on, as a summoning 6 order, or even a direction to register an FIR, has grave consequences for setting the criminal proceedings in motion. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by way of applying pressure through criminal prosecution, should be deprecated and discouraged. 8. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions expressed grave concern in respect of allowing civil disputes to be wrongly converted into criminal proceedings. 9. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 19/02/2025 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur as also the FIR bearing Cr.No.122/2025 dated 25-2-2025 (Annexure-P/12) registered at PS Ambikapur (Surguja) against the petitioners herein are quashed. 10. Accordingly, the CRMP is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri Rahul