1 2025:CGHC:38700-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1913 of 2024 1 - Himanshu Gupta S/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Gupta Aged About 42 Years O/o KKSPUN India Limited, 10th Floor, Tower A, Vatika Mindscape, 12/3 Sarai Khwaja, Mathura Road, Sector 27, Faridabad, Haryana 2 - Kavish Gupta S/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Gupta Aged About 37 Years O/o KKSPUN India Limited, 10th Floor, Tower A, Vatika Mindscape, 12/3 Sarai Khwaja, Mathura Road, Sector 27, Faridabad, Haryana ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Station House Officer Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Shivani Raj Tomar M.N. A-4, Flower Valley Colony, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 and 2/ State : Mr. Swajeet Uboweja, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. D.K.Gwalre, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05/08/2025 1 Heard Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Swajeet Uboweja, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. D.K.Gwalre, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2 The petitioner, by way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) has prayed for the following relief(s): “1.It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned First Information Report (F.I.R) No 0045/2024 dated 22.01.2024 (Annexure-A/1) filed by the Respondent Company at Police Station Telibandha, Dist. Raipur (CG) whereby the Petitioners have been accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as per FIR, in the interest of justice. 2. That the entire record of the aforementioned case be called for just decision in the case. 3. This Hon'ble court may pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned charge sheet No 404/24 dated 03.09.2024 filed by the Telibandha Police, and consequent criminal proceedings before JMFC First Class, Raipur in case 14868/2024 whereby the Petitioners have been accused of offences punishable under Sections 420r/w 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.” 3 The brief facts, as projected by the petitioners are that petitioner No. 1 is Managing Director of KKSPUN India Ltd. (for short, the Company), petitioner No. 2, brother of petitioner No. 1 is one of the Director of the 3 Company. According to the prosecution, the respondent No. 3/Complainant who is the proprietor of M/s SR Constructions has lodged the FIR for the offences under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC with an averment that the petitioners, with an intention to cheat him, sub- contracted the work to the firm of the complainant vide an agreement dated 30.12.2020 at Raipur for construction of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) at District Satna, Madhya Pradesh. The sub-contract emanates from a tender awarded by Municipal Corporation Satna (Madhya Pradesh) in favour of the Company of which the complainant alleges that the petitioners/accused are the Directors. It has been alleged that the Company along with other co-accused have made payment of only Rs. 1,50,78,579/- out of the total payment for the work done by the complainant i.e. Rs. 2,69,66,995/-. The said non-payment is on account of termination of the contract by the Satna Municipal Corporation due to delay in completion of work. Therefore, by non-payment of the balance amount, the Company has caused a loss of Rs. 1,18,88,415/- to the complainant and therefore, committed cheating on account of their failure to make payment for the aforesaid balance amount. The complainant further alleges that the petitioners have also cheated the government by raising forged bill in the name of complainant on 30.12.2020. 4 Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that a letter of intent (LoI) for sub-contracting of tender work was issued by the Company on 30.12.2020. Thereafter, on account of delay by M/s. SR Constructions in completion of work, the tender was terminated by Municipal Corporation, Satna on 06.04.2021 which led to non-clearance of bills towards the firm of the complainant. In essence, the present FIR has been filed by sub-contractor of the Company to recover sum to the tune of Rs.1,18,88,,415 from the Company on account of termination of 4 contract of the Company by the Municipal Corporation, Satna due to delay in completion of work. The present FIR is a mere offshoot of the First FIR No. 0218 of 2023 dated 20.07.2023 in order to side step the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The facts of this case are identical to the other FIR, only the complainant is different and both the cases arise from the same transaction. The second FIR, therefore, is not tenable and the police officials affecting the arrest stand in contempt of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The present FIR is nothing but a malicious attempt by the police officials, who are working hand in glove with the complainant in order to coerce a settlement in the matter. The same is evident from the 41-A notice sent by DSP, Crime, Raipur dated 12.07.2023, one week before registration of the first FIR in which both complainants had made a complaint to the said officer and the notice was sent to investigate the complaint made by both the complainants i.e. proprietor Ansh Infrastructure (Complainant in FIR 1) and M/s SR Constructions (Complainant in FIR 2). Therefore, the petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking quashing of FIR 0045/2024 dated 22.01.2024 registered at Telibandha P.S., Raipur. 5 Mr. Saxena submits that the petitioners are completely innocent and have committed no offence whatsoever. The allegations as made in the FIR are completely false, bogus and made with mala fide intent to arm twist applicant into payment of money. The entire ground for the FIR is a false, incorrect and bogus allegation made to harass and browbeat the petitioners and other Director of Company. The FIR has been lodged on 24.01.2024, which is after a delay of about 3 years and 2 months which clearly shows that the said FIR has been filed just to harass and humiliate the petitioners and to pressurize for payment of money. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of 5 Kerala and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, to state that subsequent FIRs on the same transaction should be treated as statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C. An arrest under the subsequent FIR when there exists an anticipatory bail in the first FIR is patently illegal and full of malafide. Since the present FIR is a second FIR arising out of the same transaction as that of FIR No. 0218 of 2023 registered at Vidhan Sabha PS, Raipur, it is not tenable in law. Even if assuming that the present dispute is not arising from the same transaction, it is submitted that it is purely concerned with recovery of money of sub-contractor M/s SR Constructions on account of termination of contract by Satna Municipal Corporation. It is clearly a civil dispute. However, an attempt has been made to give the same a criminal colour by filing the present FIR, which clearly constitutes an abuse of process and misuse of the state machinery. In such cases, there is no offence whatsoever that is disclosed and the FIR is completely false and spurious, with no requirement whatsoever for the custody of the petitioners. The practice of initiating criminal proceedings in the form of Section 420 and 120-B of IPC, instead of civil proceedings order to recover money has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again. No offence under 420 of IPC is made out. The averments made in the FIR, though specifically being denied as incorrect, does not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC as no false representation or dishonest intention can be said to have been made by the petitioners from the inception. From bare perusal of the FIR primary ingredient of cheating is not made out as the intention to cheat cannot be said to be present from the inception. There is no act or omission averred in the FIR which qualify to be punishable offence under the law. Further, mere breach of an agreement does not give rise to an offence under Section 420 of IPC. 6 6 Mr. Saxena further submits that in a similar case, wherein also, the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the FIR bearing No. 218/2023, registered at Police Station, Vidhansabha, District Raipur, this Court had been pleased to allow the said petition being Cr.M.P. No. 1843/2023 Himanshu Gupta & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, decided on 01.08.2024, wherein also similar facts were involved, and as such, the present petition may also be allowed. 7 On the other hand, Mr. Swajeet Uboweja, learned counsel for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that when a commission of cognizable offence came to the knowledge of the police, the FIR was registered and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has also been filed before the trial Court concerned. 8 Mr. D.K.Gwalre, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/complainant submits that the respondent No. 3 is a proprietor of a firm namely M/s. S.R.Construction. The firm is engaged in civil construction, water treatment and sewerage works etc. and had successfully under taken and completed various projects for many reputed companies / institutions. The petitioner-Company was awarded work by Municipal Corporation of Satna (MP) under Amrut Scheme of Govt. of India. The Company was required to establish Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) for which, the directors of the company namely Himanshu Gupta and Kavish Gupta (the petitioners herein) approached the complainant / respondent No. 3 at Raipur. After due negotiations, the parties agreed to enter into an agreement, and pursuant thereto, the petitioners had issued a work order dated 30.12.2020 to the complainant for establishing an SPT at Satna (MP). The firm of complainant started and had completed almost 30% of the given work worth Rs. 2,69,66,995/-. The Company of the petitioners made part payment of Rs. 1,50,78,579/- and started avoiding to make 7 remaining payment. The respondent No. 3 came to know that the Municipal Corporation, Satna (MP) had already terminated the agreement / tender given to Company of the petitioners way back on 21.04.2020 and suppressing this material fact as well as keeping the complainant in dark the agreement dated 30/12/2020 was executed. The complainant tried its best to contact the petitioners but they kept on avoiding by making lame excuses. By committing forgery of valuable document and cheating the petitioners have caused wrongful loss of huge amount to the respondent No. 3. Resultantly the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 45/2024 dated 22/01/2024 (Annexure-P/1) came to be registered. After holding due investigation the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners / accused persons on 03.09.2024 for their having committed offences punishable under sections 420/120-B, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. and the learned trial court has taken cognizance. As such, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10 Admitted facts are that some work order was issued by the Municipal Corporation, Satna to the petitioner-Company which was given on sub- contract to the respondent No. 3 on 30.12.2020. According to the respondent No. 3, she had completed 30% of the works awarded to her and spent a sum of Rs. 2,69,66,995/- and only RS. 1,50,78,579/- has been paid by the petitioners and the remaining amount is still outstanding. It is the say of the respondent No. 3/complainant that the work order issued to the petitioner Company was terminated way back on 21.04.2020 but still the petitioner sub-contracted the work to her. 8 11 Be that as it may, essentially, the dispute involved in the present case relates to recovery of money for the work done by the respondent No. 3 for the petitioners-Company. It may be true that the tender awarded to the petitioner-Company might have been terminated by the Municipal Corporation, Satna, however, the respondent No. 3 has entered into an agreement with the petitioner-Company and not the Municipal Corporation, Satna. If the respondent No. 3 has done some work as awarded by the petitioners and the petitioners are not making payment of the said work done, the proper course available for the respondent No. 3 was to file a civil suit for recovery of the losses / outstanding dues which she has not taken to. According to the respondent No. 3/complainant, the agreement between the Municipal Corporation, Satna and the petitioner- Company was terminated way back on 21.04.2020, however, from perusal of Annexure P/4, which is a communication by the office of Municipal Corporation, Satna, it appears that the said termination was suspended and the agreement came to be finally terminated only on 06.04.2021 and the agreement between the petitioner-Company and the respondent No. 3 was entered on 30.12.2020. There can be no disagreement that the present is a civil dispute where there appears to be no element of fraud involved so as to attract. 12 Earlier, this Court, vide order dated 01.08.2024 in Cr.M.P. No. 1843/2023, has quashed the FIR bearing No. 218/2023, dated 20.07.2023, registered at Police Station, Vidhansabha, for the offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, wherein also, similar facts that the work was sub-contracted to the respondent No. 4 therein and a dispute with regard to outstanding dues was involved, relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Others {(1998) 5 SCC 749} and State of Haryana & 9 Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others {1992 Supp 1 SCC 335}, Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries {(2020) 4 SCC 162}, Ahmad Ali Quraishi & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another {(2020) 13 SCC 435}, Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra & Others {(2019) 18 SCC 191}. 13 Recently, the Apex Court, in Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. {Cr.A. No. 2963/2025 : 2025 INSC 869}, observed as under: “10. How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality. 11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of “Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It appears that this very decision was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent. We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such exercise. The High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other 10 proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016. 12. xxx xxx xxx 13. We also enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of process of law.” 14 From the materials available on record, we are of the view that this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and quash the FIR dated 22.01.2024 bearing Crime No. 0045/2024 filed by the respondent No. 3 at Police Station, Telibandha District Raipur, for the offences under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the charge sheet bearing No. 404/2024 dated 03.09.2024 as well as the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Case No. 14868/2024 wherein the petitioners have been accused of the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. It is ordered accordingly. 15 Resultantly, this petition stands allowed. However, the respondent No. 3 may take recourse to civil proceedings for recovery of the outstanding amount, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.06 20:01:54 +0530