1 2026:CGHC:10947-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1315 of 2023 1 - Vimal Chand Jain S/o Late Manikchand Jain Aged About 69 Years Resident Of 22b, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vaibhav Jain S/o Shri Vimal Chand Jain Aged About 45 Years Resident Of 22b, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Gunjeet Singh S/o Late Amrik Singh Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Gunmaan Villa, Near Jai Shri Rice Mill, Chikhali, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. B.P. Sharma along with Mr. Manay Nath Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.03.05 14:38:21 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 03/03/2026 1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.0409/2017 dated 26.09.2017 registered at Police Station concerned, District Durg, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which culminated into filing of charge-sheet dated 13.06.2018 and registration of Criminal Case No.31476/2018 (State vs. Vimal Jain & Anr.) pending before the learned Court below. ******* The petitioners seek to assail the very registration of the aforesaid FIR as well as the consequential proceedings on the ground that the dispute, as reflected from the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, pertains to alleged non-delivery of a Toyota Innova vehicle despite payment of booking amount and is essentially civil in nature arising out of a contractual transaction, which has already been subject matter of proceedings before the Consumer Forum and other fora. It is contended that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, namely fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception and entrustment coupled with misappropriation, are conspicuously absent; similarly, no prima facie case is made out under Sections 294 or 506 IPC. According to the petitioners, the continuation of criminal prosecution in the backdrop of parallel civil/consumer 3 proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of Court and law, warranting exercise of inherent powers of this Court in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2017) 13 SCC 369 and other binding precedents governing the scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC. 2. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that, the petitioner No.2 is stated to be the Director of M/s Vicon Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., which had entered into a dealership agreement with Toyota Kirloskar Motors, renewed from time to time. Petitioner No.1 is the father of petitioner No.2 and, according to the petitioners, has no direct role in the affairs of the said company. ******* Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that he had deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards booking of a Toyota Innova vehicle and was assured delivery within six months. It is alleged that despite lapse of the stipulated period, the vehicle was not delivered and, upon inquiry, respondent No.2 came to know that the dealership of the petitioners had been cancelled. He further alleged that upon demanding refund of the booking amount, he was subjected to abusive language and threats. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No.0409/2017 dated 26.09.2017 came to be registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet dated 13.06.2018 was filed, and Criminal Case No.31476/2018 (State vs. Vimal Jain & Anr.) is pending before the competent Court at Durg. 4 ******* Apart from initiating criminal proceedings, respondent No.2 also filed Consumer Complaint No. CC/17/357 before the District Consumer Forum, Raipur, seeking compensation in respect of the same transaction. The complaint was decided ex parte against the petitioners by award dated 06.02.2018 granting compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-. The appeal preferred before the State Commission was dismissed, and a revision petition was thereafter filed before the National Commission, wherein the awarded amount has been deposited by the petitioners. It is also stated that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated against the petitioners in relation to the same transaction. ******* Aggrieved by the registration of FIR and continuation of criminal proceedings, and contending that the dispute is essentially civil in nature arising out of a commercial transaction, the petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR and consequential proceedings on the ground of abuse of process of law. 3. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the entire prosecution launched against the petitioners is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of Court, arising out of a purely commercial and contractual transaction, which has deliberately been given a criminal colour with an oblique motive to pressurize the petitioners. It is contended that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. There is no averment in the complaint to indicate that at the inception of the transaction there 5 was any fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners. Mere non-delivery of a vehicle within the stipulated time or failure to refund the booking amount would, at the highest, constitute a breach of contract, but cannot ipso facto amount to cheating in absence of mens rea from the very beginning. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and Vineet Kumar (supra), wherein it has been consistently held that criminal proceedings ought to be quashed where the dispute is essentially civil in nature and continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law. ******* Learned counsel would further submit that so far as Section 406 IPC is concerned, there is no specific allegation of entrustment of property to petitioner No.1, nor is there any material to demonstrate dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property to personal use. Even assuming that any amount was paid, the same was paid in the course of business dealings with M/s Vicon Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., and not in the personal capacity of petitioner No.1. In absence of specific allegations attributing criminal intent and active role, the prosecution of the petitioners is legally unsustainable. It is also argued that the offences under Sections 294 and 506 IPC are baldly alleged without any specific particulars as to the date, time, place or nature of the alleged abusive words or criminal intimidation. Such vague and omnibus allegations do not satisfy the statutory ingredients of the said offences. ******* Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 has already availed efficacious civil remedy by filing Consumer Complaint No. 6 CC/17/357 before the District Consumer Forum, Raipur, in respect of the same transaction. The said complaint was decided ex parte by order dated 06.02.2018 awarding compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-. It is specifically submitted that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has already been deposited by the petitioners before the Consumer Forum/National Commission in compliance with the order dated 06.02.2018. The act of depositing the awarded amount clearly demonstrates bona fides on the part of the petitioners and negatives any allegation of dishonest intention or criminal misappropriation. Once the consumer dispute has culminated in an award and substantial compliance thereof has been made, continuation of criminal prosecution on the same set of facts would amount to double jeopardy in spirit and manifest harassment. It is further contended that the complainant has simultaneously initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in relation to the same transaction. The multiplicity of proceedings arising out of one commercial transaction unmistakably indicates that the criminal law has been set in motion as a pressure tactic to coerce the petitioners. ******* Learned counsel would thus submit that the present case squarely falls within the parameters enumerated in paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly categories (1), (5) and (7), as the allegations do not prima facie constitute any cognizable offence and the proceedings appear to be maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quash the impugned FIR and consequential criminal proceedings in the interest of justice. 7 4. Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the petition and submit that the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. It is contended that the FIR and the material collected during investigation, including statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and documentary evidence, prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences under Sections 420, 406, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The allegations are specific that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards booking of a Toyota Innova vehicle on the assurance that the same would be delivered within a stipulated period. It is further alleged that despite receipt of the booking amount, the vehicle was not delivered and the complainant was subsequently informed that the dealership had already been cancelled. Such allegations, if taken at face value, clearly indicate dishonest inducement and deception at the inception of the transaction. ******* Learned State counsel would submit that the existence of a civil remedy or consumer proceedings does not ipso facto bar criminal prosecution where the ingredients of a penal offence are made out. It is well settled that a given set of facts may give rise to both civil liability and criminal culpability. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) has held that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence or the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides. In the present case, the 8 allegations in the FIR, when read as a whole, do disclose the essential ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust. ******* It is further submitted that the defence of the petitioners that the dispute is purely civil in nature, or that the amount has subsequently been deposited before the Consumer Forum pursuant to its order dated 06.02.2018, cannot be considered at this stage for quashing the proceedings. Subsequent deposit of money does not efface the criminality, if any, committed at the time of inducement or misappropriation. The question whether there was dishonest intention at the inception is a matter of evidence and trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. ******* Learned State counsel would also contend that the charge-sheet has already been filed after due investigation and the trial Court has taken cognizance. At this stage, this Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or to appreciate disputed questions of fact. If the uncontroverted allegations disclose commission of an offence, the criminal proceedings ought to be permitted to continue, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar (supra). It is thus submitted that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories carved out for quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings. The petitioners have adequate opportunity to raise all permissible defences before the trial Court. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 CrPC deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Anurag Jha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would vehemently oppose the petition and submit that the present petition is 9 a classic attempt to stifle a legitimate prosecution at the threshold by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 CrPC. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR clearly disclose that respondent No.2 was induced to part with a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards booking of a Toyota Innova vehicle on the specific representation that the vehicle would be delivered within six months. It is further alleged that at the time of accepting the booking amount, the petitioners were aware that the dealership had already been cancelled or was not operational, yet they continued to accept money from the complainant. Such conduct, according to learned counsel, prima facie establishes dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 420 IPC. ******* Learned counsel would contend that the plea of the petitioners that the dispute is purely civil in nature is misconceived. Merely because the complainant has availed consumer remedy or other civil proceedings does not preclude criminal prosecution where the factual foundation discloses commission of cognizable offences. It is settled law that civil and criminal remedies can proceed simultaneously if the allegations constitute both a civil wrong and a criminal offence. In this regard, reliance is placed on the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), wherein it has been held that quashing at the threshold is permissible only when the allegations do not disclose any offence or are absurd and inherently improbable. It is further submitted that the subsequent deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the Consumer 10 Forum does not absolve the petitioners of criminal liability. The deposit was made only after initiation of proceedings and cannot retrospectively wash away the initial act of deception. Criminality is to be tested at the time of inducement and acceptance of money, and not on the basis of subsequent compliance under compulsion of judicial orders. ******* Learned counsel would also submit that the allegations regarding abusive language and criminal intimidation are specific and form part of the same transaction when the complainant demanded refund of his hard-earned money. The veracity of these allegations is a matter of evidence and can only be adjudicated during trial. At this stage, this Hon’ble Court is not required to evaluate the sufficiency or reliability of evidence. It is further argued that the charge-sheet has already been filed after due investigation, and cognizance has been taken by the competent Court. Interference at this stage would amount to short- circuiting the trial and denying the complainant an opportunity to establish his case on evidence. ******* In view of the above, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the present case does not fall within any of the categories warranting quashment under Section 482 CrPC. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, leaving the petitioners to raise all permissible defences before the trial Court in accordance with law. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the present petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the 11 material available on record, this Court is required to examine whether the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners. 8. The gravamen of the allegation is that respondent No.2 deposited an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards booking of a Toyota Innova vehicle and the vehicle was not delivered within the stipulated time. It is not in dispute that the transaction emanates from a commercial arrangement relating to sale of a vehicle through a dealership. The dispute, therefore, arises out of a contractual relationship. There is no specific material brought on record to prima facie demonstrate that at the very inception of the transaction the petitioners had a fraudulent or dishonest intention to deceive the complainant. Mere failure to deliver the vehicle within time or failure to refund the booking amount, without anything more, would not ipso facto constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) has categorically laid down that where the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offence or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. Similarly, in Vineet Kumar (supra), the Apex Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice, particularly where a purely 12 civil dispute is sought to be converted into a criminal prosecution. 10. In the present case, it is also significant that respondent No.2 has already availed consumer remedy in respect of the same transaction and obtained an award dated 06.02.2018, pursuant to which a substantial amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has already been deposited by the petitioners before the competent consumer forum. The factum of deposit pursuant to judicial orders, though not determinative of criminal liability by itself, reinforces the essentially civil complexion of the dispute and demonstrates that the grievance pertains to recovery/compensation arising out of a commercial transaction. 11. So far as the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, there is no clear allegation of entrustment in the legal sense coupled with dishonest misappropriation. The amount in question was paid in the course of a business transaction for purchase of a vehicle, and the material on record does not prima facie establish conversion of the amount for personal use in a manner attracting criminal breach of trust. The allegations under Sections 294 and 506 IPC are omnibus and lack specific particulars, and appear to be ancillary to the principal commercial dispute. 12. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and applying the parameters enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra) and Vineet Kumar (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of Court. The dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature arising out of a commercial transaction, for which appropriate civil/consumer remedies have 13 already been invoked. 13. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the present case falls within the categories carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 0409/2017 dated 26.09.2017 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the charge-sheet dated 13.06.2018 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom in Criminal Case No.31476/2018 (State vs. Vimal Jain & Anr.) pending before the concerned Court at Durg are hereby quashed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved