Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84058 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27994 of 2016 Applicant :- M/S Teknow Overseas Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Syed,Manoj Kumar Pandey,Tarun Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amresh Bahadur Tiwari,G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Neelkant Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State respondents and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in revised call. 2. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of summoning order dated 16.04.2016 including entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.5690 of 2013 (M/s Akona Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Teknow Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and others), under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad. 3. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no.2 instituted a complaint against the applicants to pay Rs.18,11,494/- against supply of goods. As per the complaint, opposite party no.2 claimed to have supplied Ready Made Concrete (RMC) to the applicant company between 2008 to 2009. The opposite party no.2 had raised certain invoices against the aforesaid supplies. The net amount that remained unpaid was Rs.18,11,494/-. The complaint was instituted under Section 406 IPC seeking recovery of principal amount alongwith payable interest. In the said complaint, after recording the statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Court has summoned the applicants vide order dated 16.04.2016, which has been assailed by means of instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute is purely civil in nature and opposite party no.2 had filed another complaint dated 25.10.2023 on similar set of allegations for recovery of Rs.15,30,248/-, which was registered as a complaint case no.4046 of 2014, however, the said complaint was rejected by the ACJM, Court No.3, Ghaziabad vide order dated 22.05.2015. The order dated 22.05.2015 was assailed by opposite party no.2 in Criminal Revision No.86 of 2015, however, the said revision was also dismissed by the Court concerned vide order dated 15.09.2015. The order dated 15.09.2015 has not been assailed by opposite party no.2. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the instant prosecution is a gross abuse of the process of law and it is manifestly clear that a civil matter has been maliciously converted into a criminal proceeding. To buttress his argument, he is relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal and another reported in (2007) 7 SCC wherein it is observed that the non-payment or under payment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. He further relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Gaba v. State of U.P. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 423, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "A mere wrong demand or claim would not meet the conditions specified by Section 405 of the IPC in the absence of evidence to establish entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal, which action should be in violation of any direction of law, or legal contract touching the discharge of trust. Hence, even if respondent no. 2 - complainant is of the opinion that the monetary demand or claim is incorrect and not payable, given the failure to prove the requirements of Section 405 of the IPC, an offence under the same section is not constituted. In the absence of factual allegations which satisfy the ingredients of the offence under Section 405 of the IPC, a mere dispute on monetary demand of Rs. 6,37,252.16p, does not attract criminal prosecution under Section 406 of the IPC." 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has again placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rikhab Birani and another v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "During the last couple of months, a number of judgments/orders have been pronounced by this Court, especially in cases arising from the State of Uttar Pradesh, deprecating the stance of the police as well as the courts in failing to distinguish between a civil wrong in the form of a breach of contract, non- payment of money or disregard to and violation of contractual terms; and a criminal offence under Section 420 and 406of the IPC, the ingredients of which are quite different and requires mens rea at the time when the contract is entered into itself to not abide by the terms thereof." 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the record, reading of complaint and statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court it is manifestly clear that the instant prosecution is a gross abuse of the process of law and a civil matter has been maliciously converted into a criminal proceeding, not only this but a similar attempt made by opposite party no.2 has already been rejected, which has attained finality. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant application is allowed and the summoning order dated 16.04.2016 including entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.5690 of 2013 (M/s Akona Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Teknow Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and others), under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad