Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020001472024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Crl. Pet./11/2024 SRI. MAHESH KUMAR BERIYA PTOPRIETOR OF RADHA KRISHNA FLOUR MILL 48, RAHMAN ROAD, P.O. - JORHAT NHPGDOIMUKH JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR KOHIMA NAGALAND 2:SRI. KIVITO SEMA G.S. ROAD DIMAPUR NAGALAND PIN-79711 Advocate for the Petitioner : , PHILIP LORIN Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 11-09-2025 Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel as- sisted by Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 2/5 2. This petition under section 482 of Cr.PC has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the FIR dated 27.02.2023 registered at Sub-Urban Dimapur Police Station as PS Case No/G.DE No.08/2023 and the subsequent notices dated 31.03.2023, 23.02.2024 and 11.03.2024 issued u/s 41(A) of the Cr.PC 1973. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a business man and is the proprietor of Radhakrishna Flour Mill sit- uated at Jorhat, Assam. The respondent No.2 used to supply various kind of pulses and had business relationship with the pe- titioner. The impugned FIR dated 27.03.2023 is a result of agree- ment for supply of certain quantity of pulses by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner on advance payment of Rs.8 lakhs. It is submitted that despite receiving the full payment from the peti- tioner, the respondent No.2 did not supply the agreed quantity of pulses and when the petitioner started to demand the refund of the amount paid as advance, the respondent No.2 has filed the impugned FIR dated 27.03.2023 against the petitioner with false and fabricated allegations. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 failed to supply the pulses though advance payment was made on 08.05.2020 i.e. at the time of placing order and when the petitioner had asked for re- fund for the advance amount paid, the respondent No.2 had re- quested for some more time to supply the same. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 had revised the rate of the pulses and re- quested the petitioner to make the full payment. The petitioner acting on the promises of the respondent No.2 paid another sum Page No.# 3/5 of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent. However, the respondent No.2 continued to default in delivery and having no choice, the petitioner sought for refund of the advance amount. On such de- mand been made by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 in order to avoid payment had filed the FIR dated 27.03.2023 registered at Sub-Urban Dimapur Police Station as PS Case No/G.DE No.08/2023. 5. The submission of the learned senior counsel is that, it is apparent on the face of record that the respondent No.2 has filed the FIR dated 27.03.2023 only to dissuade the petitioner to recover the due amounts arising out of non supply of the pulses as ordered on 08.05.2020 and there are no ingredients of any criminal act made in the FIR and therefore, the FIR dated 27.03.2023 is nothing but abuse of the process of law. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that in connection with the present case, the petitioner has already pre- ferred a Commercial Suit before the competent Court at Jorhat claiming an amount of Rs.14,96,250/- from the respondent No.2. The said Commercial Suit has been taken cognizance by the DLSA, Jorhat Assam being Pre-Institution Mediation Case No.22/2024 and has issued notice on 13.3.2024 to the respon- dent No.2 and his representative calling upon them to appear before the said authority on 18.4.2024 for mediation. However, the respondent No.2 has not appeared. Thereafter several no- tices have already been issued to the respondent No.2 but till to- day, the respondent No.2 has failed to appear for the mediation. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the continuation of the criminal proceeding is an abuse of Page No.# 4/5 the process of law inasmuch as the respondent No.2 can redress his grievance before the Civil Court for alleged non payment of bills. He therefore, submits that if the investigation of such sub- ject matter of a civil dispute is allowed to be investigated by po- lice agency on the basis of the fabricated and mala fide FIR, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Suppl (1) SCC 335 in support of his contention. 6. On 18.6.2024, the respondent No.2 had been repre- sented by the counsel and prayed for 3(three) weeks time to re- ceive instructions from his client. However, subsequently though the matter was listed on several dates after that, the counsel also failed to appear before this Court. 7. The learned P.P. Mr. V. Zhimomi is present and he has produced a copy of the Enquiry report dated 27.03.2023 submit- ted by the investigating officer of the case. In the report of the Enquiry Officer, it is stated that the statement of the complainant as well as respondent/owner of Radhakrishnan Flour Mills Jorhat were recorded under section 161 Cr.PC. During the course of in- vestigation it is stated that no concrete evidence were estab- lished against the present petitioner, and therefore, he was re- leased on PR bond. As such it is seen that during the preliminary enquiry the investigating agency has not been able to recover any evidence regarding any criminal offence by the petitioner. 8. This Court has considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned P.P and has pe- rused the pleadings on record. On a bare perusal of the im- Page No.# 5/5 pugned FIR dated 27.03.2023, it is seen that the same is with regard to payment of Rs.12 lakhs which the complainant has claimed to be a balance amount which has not been paid. And thereafter in connection with the same matter, the petitioner has also resorted to filing a Commercial Suit which is under media- tion as on date. This Court is therefore of the view that the case is one where no criminal ingredient is present and it is essen- tially a civil dispute which can be adjudicated in the Civil Court. The respondent/complainant has also failed to appear before the Mediator. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the im- pugned FIR dated 27.03.2023 as well as the GD.E No.08/2023 is quashed and set aside. 10. The petition stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant