[2024:RJ-JP:52717] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5936/2024 Shyam Babu Khandelwal Son Of Shri Buddhilal, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 2, Kherli, Police Station Kherli, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P. 2. Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj). 3. Superintendent of Police, Alwar (Rajasthan). 4. S.H.O. Police Station, Kherli, District Bhiwadi (Rajasthan). ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1629/2024 1. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal Son Of Shri Hazari Lal Agarwal, Resident Of 5, Shanti Kunj, Near Satsang Bhawan, Alwar, District Alwar, Raj. 2. Niharika Singhal Son Of Shri Amit Singhal, Resident Of 5, Shanti Kunj, Near Satsang Bhawan, Alwar, District Alwar, Raj. 3. Amit Singhal Son Of Shri Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, Resident Of 5, Shanti Kunj, Near Satsang Bhawan, Alwar, District Alwar, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P. 2. Shyam Babu Khandelwal Son Of Shri Buddhilal, Resident Of Ward No. 2, Khedli, Police Station Khedli, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal for complainant For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, for accused person [2024:RJ-JP:52717] (2 of 9) [CRLMP-5936/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN O R D E R DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/05/2025 (In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1629/2024 ) 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed on behalf of accused petitioners Rajendra Prasad, Niharika Singhal and Amit Singhal, seeking quashing of FIR No.115/2024, registered at Police Station Kherli, District Alwar for offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and subsequent proceedings arising thereto. 2. Vide order dated 27.03.2024, interim protection was granted to the petitioners and it was directed that no coercive steps be taken against them in connection with the impugned FIR. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that from bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it is clear that it is a purely a monetary dispute, arising out of business transactions, which took place between both petitioners and complainant. Both petitioners and complainant were doing business transactions for the last three years, which is admitted by the complainant in the FIR itself but when there arose some business dispute, instead of taking recourse of civil remedy (suit for recovery), the complainant misused the process of law and lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners in order to create undue pressure upon them. The impugned FIR has been lodged with absolute false and frivolous allegations and no offence is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that no payment is to [2024:RJ-JP:52717] (3 of 9) [CRLMP-5936/2024] be made by the petitioners to the complainant. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i). Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 (ii). Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 and (iii). In Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners’ counsel. It is argued that the accused petitioners played fraud with the complainant side and are not paying dues to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioners purchased mustard on different dates worth Rs.4,18,54,800/- and made part payment of Rs.3,23,00,000/- only. But despite several requests, the petitioners have not made payment of remaining dues to the tune of Rs.95,54,812/-.It is further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that the inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Lastly, learned counsel submits that if this misc. petition is accepted and the proceedings of the impugned FIR are quashed, then, such a course would result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage the accused in repeating the crimes. [2024:RJ-JP:52717] (4 of 9) [CRLMP-5936/2024] 5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. From perusal of the Impugned FIR one fact is well established that the petitioner and the complainant have enjoyed a mutually beneficial business relationship for a significant period of time. Several business transactions took place in between the petitioner and the complainant. The complainant in this FIR alleged that from 01.04.2023 to 01.12.2023, the accused petitioners purchased mustard worth Rs.4,18,54,800/- from him and out of which, payment of three crore and twenty-three lacs rupees was made by them via cheque and RTGS and now, the petitioners are not willing to make remaining payment of ninety- five lacs to him. Thus, a careful reading of the FIR, would show that none of the ingredients of any of the offences complained against the petitioner are made out. Even if all the averments contained in the FIR are taken to be true, they do not make out any of the offences alleged against the petitioner. When FIR itself disclosed nothing more than a commercial relationship which broke, it is not possible for respondent No.2 to enlarge the scope of his complaint by merely adding the language used in the text of the Indian Penal Code. The dispute involved in this matter appears to be of civil nature for which, continuance of criminal proceedings cannot be allowed. However, the complainant may take other suitable legal recourse for his grievance. 7. In Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered [2024:RJ-JP:52717] (5 of 9) [CRLMP-5936/2024] scope and ambit of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and concluded as follows:- “10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the appellant has been raised by the second respondent and whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the very inception. If the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of advance the same would not constitute an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition contained in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. See Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. 2003CriLJ1249. 11. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that the High Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction only when one or the other propositions of law, as laid down in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Ors. (2009)1SCC516 is attracted, which are as under: (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. [2024:RJ-JP:52717] (6 of 9) [CRLMP-5936/2024] (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. Yet again, in Hira Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2009CriLJ2849, this Court held: 12. The parameters of interference with a criminal proceeding by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code are well known. One of the grounds on which such interference is permissible is that the allegations contained in the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, commission of an offence is not disclosed. The High Court may also interfere where the action on the part of the complainant is mala fide. See also Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.2009(7)SCALE85.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Paramjeet Batra VS State of Uttarakhand, 2013 ( 11) SCC 673 has held as under:- "7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to 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 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 criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. [2024:RJ-JP:52717] (7 of 9) [CRLMP-5936/2024] 8. As we have already noted, here the dispute is essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership. The pending civil suit will take care of all those issues. The allegation that forged and fabricated documents are used by the appellant can also be dealt with in the said suit. Respondent 2’s attempt to file similar complaint against the appellant having failed, he has filed the present complaint. The appellant has been acquitted in another case filed by respondent 2 against him alleging offence under Section 406 of the IPC. Possession of the shop in question has also been handed over by the appellant to respondent 2. In such a situation, in our opinion, continuation of the pending criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. The High Court was wrong in holding otherwise." 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again has reiterated that how this trend abuses the judiciary and court process. In Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Supreme Court noted that :- “This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes.” [2024:RJ-JP:52717] (8 of 9) [CRLMP-5936/2024] 10 This Court in the case of Simara Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Rajasthan & Anr : S.B. Criminal Misc Petition No.4109/2023, decided on 10.05.2024 has already held that Section 482 Cr.P.C plays a vital role in ensuring no civil cases are turned into criminal cases and the inflow of frivolous criminal cases into the legal system is to be stopped as the tendency to convert civil wrongs into criminal offence is growing and people are intended to settle civil or commercial dispute with the help of police. The view taken by this Court in the aforesaid misc. petition, has also been affirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.13105/2024 (M/s M.S. Agri versus State of Rajasthan & Anr., decided on 20.09.2024. 11. Accordingly, this Court deems it a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of it as continuance of proceedings of the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the impugned FIR No.115/2024 registered at Police Station Kherli, Alwar and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of it, are hereby quashed. 12. The misc. petition stands allowed accordingly. Stay application also stands disposed. (In S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.5936/2024) 1. The present misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/complainant seeking direction for conducting fair, proper, impartial and expedite investigation and to arrest the accused persons in connection with FIR No.115/2024 PS Kherli, District Alwar for offences under Sections 420 & 406 IPC. [2024:RJ-JP:52717] (9 of 9) [CRLMP-5936/2024] 2. Since, the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto has already been quashed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1629/2024, no orders are required to be passed in this misc. petition. Accordingly, this misc. petition is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /733