Page 1 CRM(M) no.736/2023 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR …… CRM(M) no.736/2023 CrlM no.1682/2023 S. Riyaz Pasha ……. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. Ashraf Wani, Advocate Versus Mohammad Shafi Pala ………Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ateeb Kanth, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 28.07.2025 1. Mohammad Shafi Pala, who is respondent herein, filed a complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against S. Riyaz Pasha, who is petitioner herein, for commission of offence under Section 420, 406 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). On its presentation, the court oif Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian (“Trial Court” for short), passed order impugned dated 9th November 2023 entertained the complaint, took cognizance and issued summons against petitioner. 2. Petitioner challenges complaint and seeks quashment thereof. He also seeks setting-aside of cognizance taken and process issued by Trial Court vide order impugned, inter alia, on the ground that some of petitioner is having some business transaction with respondent and he has issued some cheques to respondent; that respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian for an amount of Rs.70.00 Lacs on the same date i.e., 9th November 2023, before the same court S.no.30 Regular Cause List Page 2 CRM(M) no.736/2023 on which date complaint, subject matter of instant petition, was filed; that respondent has filed impugned complaint on the basis of some receipt annexed with it which even does not bear the date on which the said apple boxes were delivered nor the truck number, number of boxes delivered are mentioned therein; that complaint does not disclose commission of offence under Section 420, 406 IPC as best there could be remedy under civil law inasmuch as contents contained in complaint would show that it is, at the most, a civil dispute between the parties; that petitioner is resident of State of Karnataka and complaint has been filed in District Shopian to harass and intimidate him. 3. Heard learned counsel for parties. Perused order impugned and considered the matter. 4. On perusal of complaint, it is clear that there has been business transaction between parties. The business transaction was regarding supply of apple boxes by complainant/respondent to accused/petitioner. According to respondent, petitioner was to pay Rs.6.50 Crores to him. Out of said amount, it is stated that petitioner has paid Rs.5.80 Crores and rest of Rs.70.00 Lakhs is claimed to be outstanding, which according to complainant/respondent, was not paid by petitioner. The said amount having not been paid by petitioner, according to respondent tantamount to breach of trust by petitioner. 5. From the contents contained in complaint, it is unambiguously evident and apparent that it is a commercial dispute between parties with regard to the amount, which was to be paid by petitioner to respondent on account of supply of apple boxes. It appears that criminal complaint has been filed to recover the amount of Rs.70.00 Lakhs, which according Page 3 CRM(M) no.736/2023 to respondent was outstanding. Respondent instead of filing a suit seeking recovery, has filed the impugned complaint, in which impugned order has been passed by Trial Court. 6. In view of the set of facts, the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all inasmuch as criminal. There had been a significant hike in a number of frivolous complaints being filed to settle civil disputes. Such complaints also relate to commercial disputes which ought to have resolved through the forum of civil courts, but such civil disputes are given criminal colour by lifting from the penal laws certain words or phrases and has been implanting them in the criminal complaint. This mechanism of settling the civil disputes has been increasingly used for recovery of alleged outstanding amount payable by one party to another in the course of business transactions. 7. In Govind Prasad Kejriwal v. State of Bihar and Another, reported in AIR 2020 SC 1079, the Apex Court has observed that it cannot be disputed that while holding enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.PC, the Magistrate is required to take a broad view in the prima facie cases. However, even while conducting/ holding an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC, the Magistrate is required to consider whether even a prima facie case is made out or not and/or whether dispute is purely of a civil nature or not and/or whether civil dispute is tried to be given a colour of criminal dispute or not. The Supreme Court while holding that the dispute between the parties can be said to be purely a civil dispute, therefore, Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned proceedings. The underlined principle observed by Hon’ble Apex Page 4 CRM(M) no.736/2023 Court is that filing of criminal complaint to settle civil dispute is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 8. In Commissioner of Police and others. v. Devender Anand and others, AIR 2019 SC 3807, the Supreme Court has opined that criminal proceedings initiated by original complainant are nothing but abuse of the process of law for settling a civil dispute. Even considering the nature of allegations in the complaint, the Supreme Court was of the firm opinion that no case was made out for taking cognizance of an offences under Section 420/34 IPC. The case involved a civil dispute and for settling a civil dispute, a criminal complaint had been filed, which was nothing but an abuse of process of law. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and others, (2006) 6 SCC 736, has summarized the principles about exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings as under:- “The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few- Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd (1996) 5 SCC 591; State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi,(1999) 3 SCC 259; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd(2000) 3 SCC 269 [pic]Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque( 2005) 1 SCC 122. The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a Page 5 CRM(M) no.736/2023 detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” 10. In the case of Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd and another v. State of Kerala and others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 293, the Apex Court has observed that the real test is whether allegations in a complaint disclose criminal offence of cheating or not. If there is nothing to show that there was any inception on behalf of an accused person to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence u/s 420 IPC. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the courts. Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. Allowing police Page 6 CRM(M) no.736/2023 investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and that the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 11. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court are that a complaint can be quashed where allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining merits of allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. A complaint can also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. Page 7 CRM(M) no.736/2023 12. In a case of Binod Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and another, 2014 (10) SCC 663, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle of law that criminal proceedings are not to be used as a shortcut for civil remedies. The Supreme Court held that even if all the allegations in the complaint taken at the face value were true, the basic essential ingredient of dishonest misappropriation and cheating were missing and that criminal proceedings are not a short cut for other remedies. 13. The conclusion which can be drawn essentially stipulates that courts have time and again deprecated the initiation of false criminal proceedings in cases having the element of civil dispute. 14. Having regard to the allegations contained in the complaint, the dispute is with regard to the payments to be made by the petitioner regarding the supply of apples by respondent-complainant. The dispute is a civil dispute as to recovery of outstanding amount on account of the goods supplied by the respondent/complainant to petitioners herein. Such a dispute can be resolved by resorting to remedy before the Civil Courts. The respondent has invoked the jurisdiction of criminal court by filing a complaint as a shortcut method to seek recovery of the amounts alleged to be due to him on account of a business transaction. This issue has been considered in a number of cases by the Supreme Court and has deprecated the practice of filing criminal complaints to force other- side to settle the disputes which are civil in nature. The dispute between respondent and petitioner is with regard to outstanding amount on account of supply of apple boxes. This issue squarely falls within the category of civil dispute, but the respondent has given it a criminal colour by filing a complaint by lifting from the penal laws certain words Page 8 CRM(M) no.736/2023 and phrases and has implanted them in the criminal complaint. Therefore, for the reasons that the allegations contained in the complaint on the basis of which trial court has issued process is with regard to a dispute which is civil in nature for which the complaint would not be maintainable and as such, indulgence under and in terms of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and complaint filed by respondent under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against S. Riyaz Pasha, for offences under Section 420, 406 IPC titled Syed Muzamil Ahmad v. Surinder Babu Budhi Raja and Ors.”, is dismissed and Cognizance Order as well as proceedings initiated by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, including order impugned dated 9th November 2023, are quashed. 16. Respondent is at liberty to take recourse to the remedy as may be available to him under law. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 28.07.2025 Ajaz Ahmad, Secretary