2025:UHC:4004 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482/1660/2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Ahrar Beg, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Nishat Intezar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 4. By means of present C-482 Petition, the applicants seek to quash the charge- sheet dated 30.04.2016, summoning order dated 14.06.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.973 of 2016, State vs. Riyazul (Case Crime No. 07 of 2016, under Section 406 IPC, registered at PS Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar), pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The applicant was awarded the tender of collecting money from the Gullak (Donation Collection Box) in the year 2015-16 from Waqf Darbar Piran Kaliyar, Haridwar. This tender was awarded to the applicant in public auction as he was the highest bidder. As per the terms and conditions of the tender, the applicant deposited 25% of the auction amount, i.e., Rs. 8,26,250/- immediately. Thereafter, 2025:UHC:4004 the tender was cancelled on 03.12.2015. 7. After cancelling the tender, a First Information Report was lodged against the applicant alleging that he has not deposited the entire tender amount. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the applicant was summoned to face trial vide order dated 14.06.2016. Aggrieved by the summoning order, the applicant has filed present C- 482 Application. 8. Learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2016 has stayed the further proceedings of the case No. 973 of 2016 (Case Crime No. 07 of 2016), State vs. Riyazul. 9. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the tender was cancelled four months prior to its completion and main income from the Gullak was at the time of Ursh, therefore, the applicant failed to deposit the remaining amount. He further submitted that present controversy is of civil in nature. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the reported judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 16.04.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. ....... arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 8592 of 2024, Rikhab Birani & another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, in which, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “a contractual dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to initiation of a criminal proceeding” 11. From the above discussions, it is apparently clear that the complaint was lodged on the basis of breach of contract which was not fulfilled. It is dishonouring of the contract which should be adjudicated by the Civil Court after taking 2025:UHC:4004 into consideration the evidence led by the parties. 12. In view of the above, discussions, this Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed. 13. Accordingly, the Applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the charge-sheet dated 30.04.2016 summoning order dated 14.06.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.973 of 2016, State vs. Riyazul (Case Crime No. 07 of 2016, under Section 406 IPC, registered at PS Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar), pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 15.05.2025 Kaushal 2025:UHC:4004