Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040016282025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./216/2025 Vimal Kumar Bajaj Son of Hukmi Chand Bajaj, a permanent resident of Ward No. 01 Digambar Chowk, East Jorhat, Assam 785001 VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the PP of AP 2:Tanu Tamin Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Jita Tamin a permanent resident of Leriak Village PO and PS Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh and presently residing at New Market PO and PS Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Kemo Lollen, Arun Yun,Maryum Sora,Geli Taye,D Ado Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashment of the FIR dated 29.08.2025, registered as Daporijo P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025 under Sections 316(5)/318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, lodged by one Shri T. Tamin, husband of Smti Y. L. Tamin, proprietor of M/s Subansiri Energy Station, Daporijo. 3. An FIR was lodged on 29.08.2025 by one Shri T. Tamin, stating that the petitioner, who is the nephew of one Shri Kundan Mal Maheswari @ Kundan Mal Bajaj, along with his associates, had approached him for running of the petrol depot on rent, expressing willingness to take it at any cost, while claiming experience of running multiple depots in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. It is alleged that the petitioner convinced the complainant that he would manage the operations, while his uncle, Shri Kundan Mal Maheswari @ Kundan Mal Bajaj, would oversee the management. Accordingly, the complainant agreed and executed a Deed of Agreement dated 17.05.2022. However, in the month of August, 2024, it came to light that the said Shri Kundan Mal Maheswari @ Kundan Mal Bajaj, being the Power of Attorney holder, had not been paying the mandatory Value Added Tax (VAT) and other government dues since 2022. Despite repeated requests and assurances, the said Shri Kundan Mal Maheswari @ Kundan Mal Bajaj, along with the petitioner as well as one Shri Ravi Page No.# 3/7 Goswami, failed to clear the dues. It is further alleged that the said Shri Kundan Mal Maheswari @ Kundan Mal Bajaj and his workers absconded from the petrol depot, leaving behind huge unpaid VAT liabilities. It is also alleged that the petitioner is the mastermind behind operating an inter-State syndicate of illegal petrol/diesel dealings with intent to cheat dealers and evade government taxes. 4. Pursuant thereto, a case was registered being Daporijo P.S. Case No. 60/2025 under Sections 316(5)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023 and the matter is presently under investigation. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR, essentially on the ground that the allegations arise out of a commercial transaction, which is purely civil in nature. It is contended that the present petitioner is not a party to the said business transaction. 5. Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the aforesaid FIR, even if read as a whole, does not disclose any offence against the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner is only one of the witnesses to the agreement dated 01.05.2022 and the liability of a witness is only to the extent of legality and validity of the said agreement. He submits that the allegation is purely a commercial dispute and relates to non-payment/evasion of Value Added Tax in respect of M/s Subansiri Energy Station from 2022 to 2024. However, the same was subsequently paid by the main accused, Shri Kundan Mal Maheswari @ Kundan Mal Bajaj. The petitioner is nowhere connected with such alleged evasion of tax, if at all. Therefore, it is submitted that the lodging of the FIR alleging evasion/non-payment of VAT and other government dues cannot be attributed to the petitioner and, at best, would constitute a commercial dispute pertaining to the running of the depot under the agreement, for which criminal Page No.# 4/7 proceedings cannot be initiated by giving a criminal color to a purely civil dispute. 6. Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel, while referring to the Deed of Mutual Settlement dated 09.09.2025 entered into between the proprietor of M/s Subansiri Energy Station and Shri Kundan Mal Maheswari @ Kundan Mal Bajaj, submits that the main accused and the wife of the complainant have already settled the matter by clearing the dues towards VAT and other government taxes. Therefore, the initiation of criminal proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid FIR amounts to an abuse of the process of law and, as such, the same may be quashed. 7. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that as per the records, it is indicated that there was non-payment/evasion of tax, which has been settled during the pendency of the investigation between the main accused, namely, Shri Kundan Mal Maheswari @ Kundan Mal Bajaj and the complainant. It reveals that the liability to pay the VAT and other government dues now lies on the complainant, the same having been settled and paid by the accused to the complainant, which has been duly informed by the complainant to the investigating authority. The investigation has, in fact, been completed; however, due to non-production of the original copies of the deed of agreement, a final report could not be filed. He submits that although the case has been registered under Sections 316(5)/318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, as per the settled position of law, both offences cannot simultaneously stand together, as the allegations would either constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust. That apart, he submits that the non- payment of VAT by the alleged accused, which now of course has been settled, Page No.# 5/7 would purely be a commercial dispute which cannot be given a criminal colour. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. 9. Admittedly, an agreement was entered into between the proprietor of M/s Subansiri Energy Station, namely Smti Y. L. Tamin and Shri Kundan Mal Maheswari @ Kundan Mal Bajaj, for running and administering as well as managing the retail outlet (petrol pump), including transportation, purchase and sale of stock at their own expense, for a period of 10 years from 01.05.2022. The proprietor is the owner of a Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited retail outlet, namely M/s Subansiri Energy Station at New Market, Daporijo, in the District of Upper Subansiri. The agreement covers various clauses, including payment of VAT and other government dues. 10. Thereafter, the accused(s) are alleged to have failed to pay the requisite VAT and other government dues for the period 2022 to 2024. Such alleged breach would be purely in the nature of a civil dispute arising out of a commercial transaction and, at best, may relate to evasion of tax, for which statutory provisions are already in place to tackle. Thus, such alleged breach of agreement is purely a commercial or civil dispute, which cannot be given a criminal colour. 11. It further appears from the record that the alleged financial liabilities have been settled between the parties during investigation pursuant to the Deed of Mutual Settlement dated 09.09.2025. The complainant has also acknowledged such settlement before the investigating agency. Even if the allegations are taken at face value, no ingredients of the alleged offences are made out against Page No.# 6/7 the present petitioner, who prima facie appears to be neither a beneficiary nor an active participant in the alleged transactions. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has enunciated the law on quashment of criminal proceedings, charge-sheet and FIR under Section 482 Cr.PC [corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023], in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673, wherein it has been held, which is reproduced herein below: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code [corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023] 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.” 13. In the light of the settled position of law, particularly the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra (supra), there would not be any quarrel that where the dispute essentially arises out of a commercial transaction, such dispute cannot be given a cloak of criminal offence and the same having been resolved between the parties, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 14. Having considered that the dispute appears to be purely civil in nature, arising out of a commercial transaction and also considering that the parties Page No.# 7/7 have already settled the dispute, I am of the considered view that, the present case is one of those cases wherein the inherent power of this Court is required to be invoked as a civil dispute cannot be given a criminal color. 15. Accordingly, the FIR being Daporijo P.S. Case No. 60/2025 under Sections 316(5)/318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 insofar as it pertains to the petitioner, namely Shri Vikmal Kumar Bajaj, is hereby quashed and set aside. 16. The criminal petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant