Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116338 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30680 of 2014 Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Khandelwal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Saxena,Shashwat Shukla,Varad Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- Tarun Agrawal Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Varad Nath, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State- respondent, and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of complaint Case No. 811 of 2009 (Dwarikesh vs. Ashwani Kumar and others) for the offences under Section 417, 420 I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Nagina, District Bijnor. 3. Facts of the present case reveals that opposite party no. 2 is a company having sugar manufacturing units had filed a complaint against the applicant nos. 1 and 2, who were the employee of 'National Steel and Agro Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'NSAIL') with the allegation that applicant had approached opposite party no. 2 and offered for supply of High Quality Colour Coated Profile Sheet for his sugar complexes at Dwarikesh Dham, Faridpur, Bareilly U.P. and at Dwarikeshpuram, Afzalgarh, Bijnor, U.P. The negotiations took place on the very same day with the accused persons and during negotiation, the opposite party no. 2 placed the orders for supply of High Quality Colour Coated Profile Sheets through various purchase orders i.e. 16.08.2006, 01.11.2006, 20.01.2007, 30.06.2007, 09.08.2007 and 31.12.2007. The accused persons had supplied the aforesaid sheets for about 4000 sq. meters worth of Rs. 1,14,88,126.75p. Thereafter, the colour coating of the sheets have been peeled off, therefore he asked the applicants to change the sheets. on 24.10.2008 one representative of the company visited the site where the sheets were installed, opposite party asked him to either change the sheets or return the aforesaid amount. When no action taken, aggrieved with the same applicant filed complaint case against the applicants, same is assailed by means of the instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were only the employee of the alleged company i.e. NSAIL and they do not have any association, engagement, involvement or any interference in the business of the company. He further submits that the Sheets supplied to the opposite party no. 2 were received without any defect, delay or shortage and as per specification set up by the NSAIL, as no complaint were received by the company with regard to any defect, delay or shortage of goods. He further submits that after receiving of the goods opposite party installed the same at his units. After installation, of the Sheet opposite party no. 2 raised the issue of peeling off colour from such sheets, thereafter, spot inspections were carried out by the representatives of NSAIL, but instead of discussing on probable causes, opposite party no. 2 was adamant on its demand for replacement of colour coated sheets or return of entire amount paid. He further submits that company thereafter in good faith replaced 546 square metre sheets, but the applicant was putting pressure to change 1800 sq. mtrs more sheets. 5. He further submits that the dispute is purely of commercial in nature of which civil suit lies. He further submits that applicants were only employees of the company and company has not been made party in the instant application from which the entire claim of the opposite party relates. He further submits that the allegation in the complaint do not satisfy the basic ingredients of the criminal offence made under section 415 and 420 I.P.C. He further submits that even though as per the complaint, in case the same is accepted in gross, no criminality can be attached to the applicants as they were only the employee of the company and if the opposite party no. 2 had any issue with regard to the material supplied to him, he may approach the company or file a civil suit against the company, there is false implication of the applicants. To buttress his argument, he place reliance on a judgement dated 12.03.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Naresh Kumar and another vs. State of Karnataka and another (arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 1570 of 2021). It is submitted that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. The allegations levelled against the applicants are false and no offence is made out against the applicants, therefore the complaint made against the applicants is liable to be rejected. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer made by the applicants but could not press much on the issue, that the company has not been made a party. 7. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court find that definitely the complaint filed by the opposite party with regard to the dispute which is commercial dispute and applicants were only the employee of the company and they were not held responsible for the goods supplied to the opposite party no. 2. It is also evident from the record that the complaint was filed to change the entire sheets after using the same for two years and if after two years there is any defect in the material supplied to the opposite party, he may approach to the civil court for his grievance alongwith the purchase order as well as certificate of warranty, but instead of approaching the civil court, just to harass and put undue pressure, Opposite Party No. 2 had implicated the applicants in the instant criminal proceedings which is pure abuse of process of law and the instant application is liable to be allowed. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh C. Singal & others vs. The State of Gujarat & others passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3862 of 2024 has held that those criminal proceedings which has been projected and proceeded as a criminal proceedings but has a predominant character of commercial dispute should not be prosecuted. 9. Similar view has been taken in the matter of Sarabjit Kaur vs. The state of Panjab reported in 2023 5 SCC 360, wherein it has been held that a breach of contract should not give rise to a criminal prosecution. 10. Again similar view has been taken in the matter of Naresh Kumar and another vs. The State of Karnatka & others 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 221. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Kumar Sanghi vs. Sangita Rana passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1584 of 2007 has clearly held that if the company has not made an accused, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against the director of the company. 12. In view of the observation made above as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the instant application filed under Section 482 is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants in complaint Case No. 811 of 2009 (Dwarikesh vs. Ashwani Kumar and others) for the offences under Section 417, 420 I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Nagina, District Bijnor are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad