Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.3061 of 2025 Along with CRLMC No.3063 of 2025 (In the matters of petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Ravi Badrinarayan Goyal & Ors. (In CRLMC No.3061 of 2025) Tapas Kumar Mohanty (In CRLMC No.3063 of 2025) …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Ms. Pami Rath, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. Subhankar Rout, Adv. For Opp. Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, Adv. (for O.P.2) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING: -16.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -15.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above- mentioned matters, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience and proper adjudication, CRLMC No.3061 of 2025 is treated as the leading case. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 2 2. The petitioners in the present petitions seek quashing of the FIR arising out of Dhauli P.S. Case No.165 of 2025 corresponding to C.T. Case No.1228 of 2025 pending before the learned JMFC-V, Bhubaneswar. I. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. The impugned FIR has been registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on the basis of a complaint dated 20.07.2025 lodged by Opposite Party No.2, namely Alaka Manpower Security Services, alleging non-payment of outstanding dues arising out of contractual transactions between the parties. 4. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be the Director of Securevalue India Ltd., a company engaged in the business of cash management and logistics services. Petitioner No.2 is stated not to hold any position or shareholding in the said company, whereas Petitioner No.3 is described as the erstwhile Area Manager of Securevalue India Pvt. Ltd. and Petitioner No.4 as its erstwhile Chief Financial Officer, who is stated to have resigned from the company on 14.02.2025. Opposite Party No.2, namely Alaka Manpower Security Services, is stated to be engaged in providing manpower services including armed guards, security guards, office boys, loaders, housekeepers and drivers. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that Opposite Party No.2 had approached Securevalue India Ltd. in the year 2021 for providing manpower services in the State of Odisha, pursuant to which an agreement dated 15.05.2021 was executed between the parties for providing gunmen and operational staff. Subsequently, upon expiry of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 3 the said agreement, another agreement dated 15.05.2023 was executed, continuing the terms and conditions between the parties. 6. It is further stated that both the agreements dated 15.05.2021 and 15.05.2023 contained arbitration clauses providing for resolution of disputes through arbitration in the event of disputes, controversies or claims arising out of or in connection with the agreements. 7. According to the petitioners, Opposite Party No.2 continued to provide services to Securevalue India Ltd. from the year 2021 till 2025. It is further averred that despite financial disruptions faced by the company during the COVID-19 period, payments due to Opposite Party No.2 were not withheld and an amount of Rs.40,03,042.67 was paid to Opposite Party No.2 during the said period. 8. The dispute between the parties is stated to have subsequently arisen regarding alleged outstanding salary dues payable to Opposite Party No.2. It is alleged by the petitioners that despite the existence of an agreed dispute resolution mechanism under the agreements, Opposite Party No.2 lodged the complaint dated 20.07.2025 before Dhauli Police Station alleging commission of offences under the provisions of the BNS. 9. On the basis of the said complaint, Dhauli P.S. Case No.165 of 2025 came to be registered on 20.07.2025 against the present petitioners under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS. 10. The petitioners contend that the dispute between the parties is essentially contractual and civil in nature, arising out of alleged non- payment of dues under the agreements dated 15.05.2021 and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 4 15.05.2023, and that the criminal proceeding has been initiated notwithstanding the arbitration clause contained in the agreements. The petitioners have accordingly approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned FIR as against the present petitioners. II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS: 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The petitioners submitted that the dispute between the parties is fundamentally civil in nature and has been improperly given a criminal colour by Opposite Party No.2. It was contended that the dispute, at best, concerns a contractual disagreement arising out of the Agreements dated 15.05.2021 and 15.05.2023 pertaining to services rendered by Opposite Party No.2 to Securevalue India Ltd. It was further submitted that the said agreements specifically provide that any dispute, controversy, difference of opinion, or claim arising out of or relating to the agreements, including interpretation of any terms, conditions or provisions thereof, shall first be attempted to be resolved through consultation and, upon failure thereof, be referred to arbitration in terms of Clause 14 of the agreements. ii. It was further submitted that there was no fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the petitioners and that they had never intentionally induced Opposite Party No.2 to deliver any property. According to the petitioners, there was no deception practised upon Opposite Party No.2 since the commencement of the agreements between the parties. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 5 iii. It was further contended that the dispute arises out of a lawful agreement entered into between the petitioner company and Opposite Party No.2 and that, in the event of any dispute arising from non- performance of the contractual obligations, the aggrieved party has the remedy of approaching the appropriate forum for breach of contract. iv. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dalip Kaur & Others v. Jagnar Singh & Another1, wherein it was held that the offence of cheating requires fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction and not merely a subsequent failure to fulfil a promise. It was submitted that Opposite Party No.2 had admittedly received an amount of Rs.40,03,042.67 towards the services rendered and, therefore, there was no material to indicate that the petitioners had any intention to cheat Opposite Party No.2 from the very outset. v. Reliance was further placed on the decision in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar2, wherein the distinction between breach of contract and the offence of cheating was explained. It was submitted that mere breach of contractual obligations would not amount to cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention existed at the inception of the transaction. According to the petitioners, the relevant consideration is the intention at the time when the promise was made and a subsequent failure to perform the promise would not by itself establish such intention. 1 2009 (14) SCC 696. 2 2000 (4) SCC 168 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 6 vi. It was further submitted that every breach of contract would not amount to the offence of cheating and that only in cases where deception existed from the very inception could an allegation of cheating be sustained. According to the petitioners, if the intention to cheat develops subsequently, it would not attract criminal liability under Section 420 IPC. It was contended that the complainant is required to establish fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time the promise was made and mere failure to fulfil the promise, in the absence of such intention from the beginning, would not constitute the offence of cheating. In the present case, it was submitted that Opposite Party No.2 had admittedly received an amount of Rs.40,03,042.67 under the agreements executed between the parties and, therefore, there was no basis to allege that the petitioners had intended to cheat Opposite Party No.2 from the inception of the transaction. vii. It was further submitted that it is well settled that every breach of trust would not constitute a criminal offence unless there is material to show fraudulent misappropriation of entrusted property. According to the petitioners, where property is lawfully received and is thereafter retained or used in alleged breach of contractual obligations, the question as to whether the same constitutes criminal breach of trust or merely gives rise to civil liability would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, particularly the existence of dishonest intention. It was contended that in the present case neither the petitioners nor the company had been entrusted with any property which was subsequently misappropriated. It was further submitted Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 7 that the petitioners had neither unlawfully received any property nor retained or used the same in violation of the contractual terms and, therefore, the allegations, at best, disclose a civil dispute for which appropriate remedies are available before the competent forum. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed on Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand3 and Binod Kumar & Others v. State of Bihar & Another4. viii. It was also submitted that there exists a clear distinction between the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. According to the petitioners, the offence of cheating requires fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, namely at the stage of making a false or misleading representation, whereas in the case of criminal breach of trust, the essential ingredients are lawful entrustment of property followed by dishonest misappropriation thereof. It was contended that in cases of criminal breach of trust, the property is initially received lawfully and is subsequently misused, while in the offence of cheating, deception itself induces the delivery of property. On such basis, it was argued that both offences cannot ordinarily arise out of the same set of acts simultaneously. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh5, Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of 3 2025 SCC Online SC 2058 4 (2014) 10 SCC 663 5 2024(10) SCC 690 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 8 Jharkhand6 and Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & Another v. Sudha Seetharam & Another.7 ix. It was further submitted that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are deception of a person, fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property and the existence of dishonest intention at the time of such inducement. According to the petitioners, Opposite Party No.2 was never deceived or lured into executing the agreements between the parties and there was no inducement on the part of the petitioners for delivery of any property to any person. It was contended that there was neither any dishonest inducement at the time of execution of the agreements nor during the subsistence of the contractual relationship between the parties. x. Reliance was further placed on the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal8 wherein the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings were laid down and which, according to the petitioners, were subsequently reaffirmed in Muskan v. Ishaan Khan & Others9. Referring to the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), it was contended that where the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence, where the allegations and materials on record do not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, where the allegations are inherently improbable, where there exists an 6 2025 SCC Online SC 2058 7 2024 (10) SCC 690 8 1992 (Suppl-I) SCC 335 9 Criminal Appeal No.4752 OF 2025 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 9 efficacious alternative remedy, or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide intention, the FIR would be liable to be quashed. xi. It was submitted that in the present case, even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted in their entirety, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and the dispute between the parties remains essentially civil in nature arising out of contractual obligations. It was further contended that the agreements executed between the parties specifically provide for arbitration as the mode of dispute resolution and, in the event of any grievance relating to non-disbursement of wages, the concerned employees have remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the petitioners, the criminal proceeding has been initiated with mala fide intention and out of personal grudge against them. In support of such submissions, reliance was also placed on Ankul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh10 and V. Ganesan v. State11. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY: 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. It was submitted that the petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR arising out of Dhauli P.S. Case No.165 of 2025 corresponding to C.T. Case No.1228 of 2025 on the ground that the dispute between the parties relates to payment of dues and is civil in nature. It was 10 2025 SCC Online SC 2060 11 2026 INSC 265 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 10 submitted that the petitioners had entered into agreements with Opposite Party No.2 for supply of manpower and, pursuant thereto, manpower was supplied from time to time. According to Opposite Party No.2, bills for payment were regularly forwarded to the petitioners; however, the dues were not cleared. It was contended that such action on the part of the petitioners amounts to cheating and criminal breach of trust for which the FIR came to be lodged and the matter is presently pending before the learned JMFC(V), Bhubaneswar for adjudication. It was, therefore, submitted that at this stage the FIR ought not to be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. ii. It was further submitted that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on B. Daxaben v. State of Gujarat12 wherein it was held that the inherent power may be exercised only in exceptional cases. iii. It was further submitted that Opposite Party No.2 had continued to provide manpower services to the petitioner company over a substantial period of time and had raised bills from time to time towards the services rendered. According to Opposite Party No.2, despite repeated demands and requests, the petitioners failed to clear the outstanding dues payable towards wages and other service charges. 12 (2022) 16 SCC 117 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 11 iv. It was contended that the allegations made in the FIR disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and, therefore, the matter requires proper investigation and adjudication before the competent court. According to Opposite Party No.2, the pleas raised by the petitioners regarding the nature of the dispute and absence of criminal intent involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. v. It was further submitted that merely because the parties are governed by contractual agreements containing an arbitration clause, the same would not by itself bar initiation of criminal proceedings where the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offences. According to Opposite Party No.2, the existence of a civil remedy or arbitration mechanism does not preclude criminal prosecution where the factual allegations prima facie disclose criminal liability. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 14. The principal question which arises for consideration in the present case is whether the allegations made in the impugned FIR, taken at their face value, disclose commission of cognizable offences warranting continuation of the criminal proceeding or whether the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature so as to justify exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of the proceeding at the threshold. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 12 15. A careful reading of the FIR reveals that the allegations levelled by Opposite Party No.2 are founded upon transactions arising out of the agreements executed between the parties and the subsequent conduct relating to payment of alleged dues. Whether the acts complained of disclose mere breach of contractual obligations or constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged are matters which require examination during the course of investigation. 16. It is trite that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, this Court does not conduct a mini trial nor adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by either party. At this stage, the allegations contained in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation are only required to be examined on a prima facie basis. 17. The contention of the petitioners is that the dispute is purely civil in nature on account of the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreements cannot, by itself, be a ground to interdict the criminal proceeding at the threshold. Merely because a transaction has civil consequences or provides for contractual remedies, the same would not automatically bar initiation of criminal proceedings if the allegations disclose ingredients of a cognizable offence. 18. The question as to whether there existed dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners from the inception of the transaction, whether any inducement was practised upon Opposite Party No.2 and whether the allegations ultimately constitute the offences alleged are all matters which would depend upon investigation into the factual aspects of the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 13 case and cannot be conclusively determined in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 19. This Court also finds that the FIR cannot be said to be so inherently improbable or absurd that no prudent person could ever reach a conclusion regarding commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage, the allegations made in the FIR do disclose factual assertions requiring investigation by the investigating agency in accordance with law. 20. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners relating to the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences undoubtedly lay down settled principles of law. However, the applicability of such principles would depend upon the facts of each individual case and the stage of the proceeding. In the present case, investigation is still at a nascent stage and this Court is not inclined to enter into disputed factual questions while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 21. This Court is also mindful of the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra), wherein the Supreme Court illustratively enumerated categories of cases where inherent jurisdiction may be exercised for quashing of criminal proceedings, including cases: “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.” and “(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 14 that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” 22. In the considered view of this Court, the present case does not fall within the aforesaid categories warranting interference at the threshold. At this stage, it cannot be held that the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence warranting investigation. V. CONCLUSION: 23. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR, this Court is not persuaded to hold that continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of Court warranting interference at this stage. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the allegations and the investigating agency shall proceed in accordance with law. 24. Accordingly, the CRLMCs being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. 25. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 15th May, 2026/-