Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77652 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13369 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Kishan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Ram Karan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shikhar Awasthi Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S.K. Awasthi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of summoning order dated 30.11.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ghatampur Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No.812 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. Facts in brief are that the applicant and opposite party no.2 were the directors and shareholders in the Company named as Ghatampur Rice Mill, because of ill health, opposite party no.2 resigned from the company, and the applicant retained the shares, however, the shares, which the opposite party no.2 held and the property, which they have purchased jointly have been misappropriated by the applicant. Since the applicant had not given the shares back, hence, opposite party no.2 lodged a complaint in which summons were issued on 30.11.2023 and when the applicant did not appear bailable warrants have been issued against them, which are under challenge by means of this application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 has also filed a Company Petition bearing Company Petition No.97/ALD/2020 against the application before the National Company Law Tribunal Bench at Allahabad, which is pending consideration. 5. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the application submitting that the property, which was entrusted by them has been used for their own purpose, therefore, the offence under section 406 IPC is clearly made out against the applicant. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it is not disputed that the opposite party no.2 did not get his share and the proceeding initiated before the National Company Law Tribunal was only qua restraining the opposite party no.2 from selling the property in which he had 1/3 share in the immovable property and 3500 shares.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punit Beriwala v. The State of NCT of Delhi and others (Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2025) dated 29.04.2025 has held that mere institution of civil proceedings cannot act as a bar to investigation of cognizable offences, further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dinesh Sharma v. EMGEE Cables and Communication Ltd. & Anr. passed in SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10744 -10745/2023 has held that criminal activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanor by their very nature stand on a different footing than other offences and have wider ramifications and criminal proceeding can be initiated in economic offences as well. 7. In cases where the transactions have a criminal angle and the same has been done with an intention to cheat, then both civil and criminal proceedings can be initiated simultaneously, to pursue both the remedies. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I see no merit in the instant application. 9. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad