Pravin Kumar Malhotra & Others …… v. State of Uttarakhand & Another

compliance of its dues. He submits that the present FIR is an arm twisting technique in a dispute which is purely civil in nature but has been given colour of a criminal offence.

4. The learned counsel the petitioners vehemently argued that the bare perusal of the FIR will clearly show that no criminality is involved and the essential conditions are not satisfied in order to rope in the petitioners for the offences they have been charged with. He further submits that the petitioner nos.2 to 4 have resigned way before lodging of the present FIR and they did not also have any involvement in the non compliance of dues which makes it very clear that the present FIR is nothing but farce. He further submitted that the petitioner himself has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the fact that he is also pursuing an alternative civil remedy under the IBC. 2

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Investigation Officer has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners without proper investigation and in routine manner. In furtherance of which the learned Judicial Magistrate has also without applying his judicial mind has taken cognizance against the petitioners in spite of the fact that the respondent no.4 has clearly tried to get criminal colour to civil dispute. The petitioners’ counsel relied upon following judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mohammad Wajid and Another reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 and in which, the Hon’ble Court has deprecated the tendency of parties giving criminal colour to civil disputes.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that the Investigation Officer after due investigation and on the basis of statements given by the respondent no.4 and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has rightfully submitted the charge-sheet and the learned court below has done no illegality in taking cognizance against the petitioner.

7. Respondent no 4 by means of his counter affidavit submitted that the petitioners are trying to get civil colour to their criminal acts of cheating. He also submitted that the Investigating Agencies have meticulously collected several documents and evidences against the petitioners which are sufficient to prove their complicity in offences under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC. He also submits that the petitioners’ company even after being fully aware of the hold 3 imposed by SBI which was not within the knowledge of the complainant/respondent time to time induced him to give delivery of the goods and have thereby deliberately cheated and deceived the complainant. He also submits that petitioner no.2 has blood relations with the director of Hero Motor Corps Ltd. and by giving him false assurance that his money is safe as Hero Motor Corps his backing petitioner no.1’s company has induced him to give delivery of goods. He also submitted that the petitioners who are the director of M/s Nipman Fastener Industries Pvt. Ltd. assured him that if the payment will be delayed by 15 days. He will be paid 24% interest on the delayed payment. He also submitted that the petitioners duped him by stating that if he invests Rs.1.5 crores in the company, he will be returned almost double the amount in one year. He further submits that all these deceiving practices clearly show that the petitioners were trying to cheat him intentionally.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of material available on record and after going through the judgments supplied by the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ratio of all the judgments is primarily that the proceedings which have been given criminal colour but are of civil nature should be quashed by the High Court, but this Court after careful perusal is of the opinion that the matter in hand, prima facie, involves criminal elements and consists of disputed facts and allegations the truth of which could only be found out by a proper trial. Since, the offences lodged against the applicants are very serious in nature and prima-facie a case is 4 made out against the applicants, it is essential for the ends of justice that the applicants should be subjected to a proper trial. In a catena of judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that High Court should be slow in interfering with the criminal proceedings, if prima-facie the case is made out against the applicant.

9. Recently, in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that criminal case shall not be scuttled at the initial stage. Relevant subparas of Para 33 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:- “33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in 5 the FIR;

33.16 The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438CrPC before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till investigation is completed and/or report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

9. After keeping the following principles in mind this court does not deem it fit to quash the impugned FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Ravi (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.07.2025 6