2025:UHC:7844 Judgment reserved on: 28.08.2025 Judgment delivered on: 03.09.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appli. (C-482) No. 356 of 2016 Devendra Sharma -------Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others -----------Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2016, passed by learned IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Revision No. 263 of 2015 (Balbir Kashyap and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and others), and Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2015, (Aman vs. State of Uttarakhand and another). By the aforesaid order, the summoning order dated 25.01.2014, passed in Complaint Case No. 26 of 2011, Devvendra Kumar Sharma vs. Aman and others, was quashed. 1 2025:UHC:7844 2. The brief facts, as narrated in this petition under C-482 are that the petitioner Devendra Sharma earlier worked as a Tool Room Supervisor in a company Onassis Auto Ltd., Gurgaun and after resigning from the said company, he shifted to Haridwar for starting his independent business and entered into an agreement with one Aman (respondent no. 4) and on 27.05.2010 took a plot situated at F-80 Industrial Area, Haridwar, on rent from respondent no.4 for a period of two years @ of Rs. 11,000/- per month so that the petitioner can start his own business on this premises, in the name of M/s Nipun Engineering Works and got himself registered with the Labour Department; that the petitioner purchased a lot of machinery for installing in his factory; that Balbir Kashyap (respondent no.2) and Rajeev Madan (respondent no.3) were employed on commission basis for arranging the orders and collection of payments; that respondent no. 2 and respondent no.3 in view of capturing the business of the petitioner, in collusion with the respondent no.4 fabricated and forged several documents and opened an account in the name of M/s Nipun Engineering Works with the help of Bank Manager, IDBI Bank and also got PAN number in their favour; that when the petitioner came to know about the forgery and the fact that the entire payment deposited in the account was siphoned by respondent no.2 to 4 he filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar; that on 17.09.2013, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hairdwar registered the Application as a Complaint Case and directed the petitioner to adduce evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; that the matter was transferred to 2 2025:UHC:7844 1st Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Haridwar, who after recording the statements of the petitioner and after examining the documentary evidence, summoned the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and the Bank Manager, IDBI, under Sections 419, 420, 464 and 468 IPC, vide order dated 25.01.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 26 of 2014, Devendra Kumar Sharma vs. Aman and others; that against the order dated 25.01.2014, two time barred Criminal Revisions were filed, one Criminal Revision No. 263 of 2015, by Balbir Kashyap (respondent no.2) and Rajiv Madan (respondent no.3) vs. State of Uttarakhand and others; and 2nd one by Aman (respondent no. 4 being Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2015; that one Criminal Revision filed by the Manager of the IDBI was also registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 180 of 2014; that the Criminal Revision preferred by the Manager, IDBI was dismissed in default on 09.10.2015, however, the Criminal Revision Nos. 263 of 2015 and Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2015 preferred by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 were allowed on 05.02.2016, against which, the present C-482 Petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional Court committed a grave error of law and acted as an Appellate Authority and appreciated the evidence on the basis of hypothetical and imaginary grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 were having the registration in the name of Nipun Engineering Tools, which principal place of business was in Gurgaon, Haryana and had fraudulently opened the bank account in the name of M/s Nipun Engineering Works with the 3 2025:UHC:7844 help of the Manager, IDBI Bank showing the respondent no.2 and 3 as the partner and proprietor of the Firm. It has further been contended that the premises in question was taken by the petitioner on lease on 15.05.2010 for two years from Aman (Respondent no. 4) and on 29.10.2010, the account was opened in the IDBI Bank by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in connivance with the Bank Manager, IDBI by miss-representation and showing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 as the owner of the Firm, whereas the said Firm belongs to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Court is in accordance with law and the applicant could not prove himself to be the owner of the Firm M/s Nipun Engineering Works and he lost the case before the Civil Court and the Criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents was an abuse of the process of law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 started a business in the name of M/s Nipun Engineering Tools in the year 2005; the petitioner has worked as ‘Tool Room Supervisor’ in Onassis Auto Ltd., Gurgaon, where the company of respondent nos. 2 & 3 used to supply the goods; to start the business at Haridwar, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 entered into an agreement through registered partnership-deed on 22.07.2010; that respondent nos. 2 & respondent no.3 engaged the petitioner as Supervisor of the Firm; that the salary of the petitioner and the rent was also paid from the account of the Firm; that sale and 4 2025:UHC:7844 purchase was done through the account of the Firm; that the petitioner wanted to capture the business of the Firm, as such, he filed an Application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., stating therein that on 28.04.2011, the respondents and one Mr. Vikash came to his workshop and broke the lock of the Firm and took away cash, important documents and tools and machinery; that the respondent no.2 and respondent no. 3 are the partners of the Firm and the applicant was authorized to deal on behalf of the Firm ; that the applicant filed a Civil Suit No. 103 of 2011 before the Civil Judge (S/D), Haridwar, with similar allegations and the said Suit was dismissed on 31.07.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant admits that the Civil Suit was dismissed on 31.07.2024, he however submits that the applicant has filed a Civil Appeal before the learned District Judge, Haridwar, which is registered as First Appeal No. 26 of 2024 and is pending for final adjudication. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order passed by the Revisional Court. 8. The learned Revisional Court has decided the revisions after taking into consideration the entire facts. Learned Revisional Court has considered the fact that there exists a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents about the ownership of the Firm M/s Nipun Engineering Works and a Civil Suit No. 103 of 2011 was filed by the applicant and thereafter to give it a colour of 5 2025:UHC:7844 criminal offence, earlier the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for theft of materials, in which, in the Police report, it was found that the petitioner is not the owner of the Firm and later on, another application was moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as a Complaint Case. The learned Revisional Court thus concluded that the summoning order against the respondents was not proper and proceedings initiated against the respondents was liable to be set aside. 9. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr,P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar & Ant. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ant., 2024, INSC 196 has considered this aspect and in para 6 of the said order has held as under:- 6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to 7 be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential 6 2025:UHC:7844 ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising 8 the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Thus, the Court is of the firm opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Revisional Court. The C-482 petition fails and the same is dismissed. (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated:03.09.2025 Kaushal 7