Devendra Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand and others

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional Court committed a grave error of law and acted as an Appellate Authority and appreciated the evidence on the basis of hypothetical and imaginary grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 were having the registration in the name of Nipun Engineering Tools, which principal place of business was in Gurgaon, Haryana and had fraudulently opened the bank account in the name of M/s Nipun Engineering Works with the 3 help of the Manager, IDBI Bank showing the respondent no.2 and 3 as the partner and proprietor of the Firm. It has further been contended that the premises in question was taken by the petitioner on lease on

15.05.2010 for two years from Aman (Respondent no. 4) and on 29.10.2010, the account was opened in the IDBI Bank by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in connivance with the Bank Manager, IDBI by miss-representation and showing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 as the owner of the Firm, whereas the said Firm belongs to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Court is in accordance with law and the applicant could not prove himself to be the owner of the Firm M/s Nipun Engineering Works and he lost the case before the Civil Court and the Criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents was an abuse of the process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 started a business in the M/s Nipun Engineering Tools in the year 2005; the petitioner has worked as ‘Tool Room Supervisor’ in Onassis Auto Ltd., Gurgaon, where the company of respondent nos. 2 & 3 used to supply the goods; to start the business at Haridwar, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 entered into an agreement through registered partnership-deed on 22.07.2010; that respondent nos. 2 & respondent no.3 engaged the petitioner as Supervisor of the Firm; that the salary of the petitioner and the rent was also paid from the account of the Firm; that sale and 4 purchase was done through the account of the Firm; that the petitioner wanted to capture the business of the Firm, as such, he filed an Application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., stating therein that on 28.04.2011, the respondents and one Mr. Vikash came to his workshop and broke the lock of the Firm and took away cash, important documents and tools and machinery; that the respondent no.2 and respondent no. 3 are the partners of the Firm and the applicant was authorized to deal on behalf of the Firm ; that the applicant filed a Civil Suit No. 103 of 2011 before the Civil Judge (S/D), Haridwar, with similar allegations and the said Suit was dismissed on 31.07.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant admits that the Civil Suit was dismissed on 31.07.2024, he however submits that the applicant has filed a Civil Appeal before the learned District Judge, Haridwar, which is registered as First Appeal No. 26 of 2024 and is pending for final adjudication.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order passed by the Revisional Court.

8. The learned Revisional Court has decided the revisions after taking into consideration the entire facts. Learned Revisional Court has considered the fact that there exists a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents about the ownership of the Firm M/s Nipun Engineering Works and a Civil Suit No. 103 of 2011 was filed by the applicant and thereafter to give it a colour of 5 criminal offence, earlier the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for theft of materials, in which, in the Police report, it was found that the petitioner is not the owner of the Firm and later on, another application was moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as a Complaint Case. The learned Revisional Court thus concluded that the summoning order against the respondents was not proper and proceedings initiated against the respondents was liable to be set aside.

9. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr,P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar & Ant. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ant., 2024, INSC 196 has considered this aspect and in para 6 of the said order has held as under:-

6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to 7 be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential 6 ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising 8 the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

11. Thus, the Court is of the firm opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Revisional Court. The C-482 petition fails and the same is dismissed. (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated:03.09.2025 Kaushal 7