Anil Devlal v. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt,learned counsel for the

revision on 15.01.2015 and directed registration of an FIR. In compliance, an FIR (Case Crime No. 3 of 2015) was registered on 13.02.2015 at Police Station Dhumakot under Section 506 IPC.

7. The Applicants filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 201 of 2015 before the Hon’ble High Court, which passed an interim order on

25.02.2015 directing that no coercive measures be taken against them. The writ petition was later closed on 05.01.2017 after being informed that the police had submitted a final report.

8. Meanwhile, on the same set of facts, the Respondent also filed a criminal complaint before the trial court. Statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded, and based on these, the Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne, issued summoning orders against the Applicants on 11.08.2017 for the offence under Section 506 IPC.

9. The Applicants thereafter the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Hon’ble Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018-----Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal 2 Ashish Naithani J. High Court of Uttarakhand, challenging the summoning order and seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

10. Heard learned counsel Mr. Sanjay Bhatt on behalf of the Petitioner, and Mr. Devang Dobhal on behalf of Lokendra Dobhal on behalf of the Respondent and perused the records.

11. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the impugned criminal proceedings are an abuse of the process of law. It is argued that the core dispute between the parties pertains to a financial transaction and business relationship involving the Respondent’s brother, Sunil Devlal, and that such matters fall squarely within the realm of civil law. The Applicants assert that the filing of criminal complaints, including one before the Delhi Court, the FIR in Uttarakhand, and the present case, are tactics intended to pressurize them.

12. It is further argued that there is no material on record to substantiate the offence under Section 506 IPC. No direct or specific threat is alleged in the FIR or the complaint that would meet the legal requirements for criminal intimidation. The Applicants contend that the police, after investigation, filed a closure report, indicating that no offence was made out. The subsequent complaint and summoning order based on the same facts thus lack merit and constitute double jeopardy.

13. The learned counsel for the Applicants emphasises the inordinate delay in the initiation of criminal proceedings, alleging incidents from 2012 led to FIR registration only in 2015, and the present complaint proceedings continued even after the police had concluded investigation.

14. The issue of jurisdictional inconvenience was also raised on behalf of the Applicants, stating that they reside in a remote village more than 100 km away from Lansdowne, making compliance with court proceedings unduly burdensome in a matter likely to end in acquittal. Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018-----Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal 3 Ashish Naithani J. Finally, it is urged that no criminal intent or mens rea is evident, and the complaint, even if taken at face value, lacks the ingredients necessary to constitute a cognisable offence.

15. The learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the criminal proceedings are based on a legitimate grievance arising out of continuous threats and harassment faced by the Respondent from the Applicants. It is argued that the Applicants wrongfully withheld blank stamped papers and cheques from the Respondent’s brother and, despite the settlement of dues, continued to demand further payments, thereby issuing threats to the Respondent's life and liberty.

16. The Respondent’s counsel places reliance on the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 15.01.2015, which, in Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2014, directed registration of an FIR. It is contended that the court’s direction was based on a finding that the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence. Further, it is submitted that after the closure report, the Respondent exercised his statutory right by pursuing a private complaint independent of the police investigation.

17. The learned counsel for the Respondent also emphasises that statements were duly recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and the learned Magistrate applied a judicial mind before issuing the summoning order. The Respondent had to relocate from Pauri Garhwal to Delhi due to the threats received, and official documents remain at his former place of posting. It is further argued that the High Court, while hearing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., ought not to interfere at the preliminary stage where there exists prima facie material warranting trial, and that the Applicants have adequate remedies under the Cr.P.C. to seek discharge or contest the allegations at trial.

18. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the dispute between Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018-----Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal 4 Ashish Naithani J. the parties originates from a business transaction primarily involving the Applicants and the Respondent’s brother, Mr. Sunil Devlal. The factual matrix, as discernible from the documents annexed to the application and the counter affidavit, reveals a series of monetary transactions, issuance of cheques, and an acknowledgement of debt through an affidavit dated

26.03.2010 executed by Sunil Devlal.

19. It appears that the said affidavit included a promise to repay the outstanding amount, which was not honoured, thereby prompting the Applicants to consider legal remedies.

20. The Court further observes that the initial effort to invoke criminal proceedings was made by the Respondent through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne, on 09.04.2013. The dismissal was on the ground that the complaint lacked specificity regarding the date, time, and mode of the alleged threats.

21. The Magistrate also noted that the Respondent himself was not a party to the underlying financial transactions and that the allegations seemed to be an attempt to create pressure in a civil dispute between his brother and the Applicants.

22. Subsequently, the Hon’ble High Court, in Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2014, interfered with the Magistrate’s order and directed the police to register an FIR. The basis for this direction was a broader interpretation of Section 154 Cr.P.C. as clarified in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., where it was held that the police are duty-bound to register an FIR if a cognisable offence is disclosed.

23. However, the Court notes that registration of an FIR under judicial direction does not ipso facto validate the allegations or substitute the requirement of a prima facie case to be made out. Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018-----Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal 5 Ashish Naithani J.

24. It is evident from the records that after investigation, the police submitted a closure report, having found no material substantiating the offence alleged under Section 506 IPC.

25. The Respondent, however, exercised his right under the law to file a private complaint. This led to the issuance of the summoning order dated 11.08.2017 by the learned Magistrate based on statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

26. The Court is of the considered view that while the complainant has the right to pursue remedies under law, the mere invocation of criminal law does not automatically justify subjecting a party to criminal trial, particularly where the foundational dispute is of a civil-commercial nature. A crucial aspect of the offence under Section 506 IPC, i.e., intention to cause alarm and specific threat to person or property,is conspicuously absent or insufficiently pleaded in the complaint. The record discloses no direct acts of intimidation or mens rea that can withstand judicial scrutiny under the threshold of criminal law. At most, the allegations reflect financial recovery efforts arising out of an admitted commercial relationship.

27. Moreover, the chronology of eventsbeginning from the affidavit of 2010, applications in 2012–2013, court proceedings till 2017, and multiplicity of litigationsindicates a protracted civil conflict in which criminal law has been selectively invoked at intervals, possibly to exert pressure. The pendency of similar proceedings in Delhi courts further compounds the issue of forum abuse.

28. It is well-settled that criminal prosecution should not be used as an instrument of coercion in matters primarily civil in nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 has repeatedly held that in cases where civil and criminal proceedings arise from the same facts, the criminal proceedings may be quashed if the Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018-----Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal 6 Ashish Naithani J. allegations do not prima facie disclose the commission of any cognisable offence.

29. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 506 IPC against the Applicants, based on the facts presently before the Court, would amount to misuse of judicial process and unwarranted harassment of the Applicants. ORDER In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court finds merit in the present application. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 147 of 2016, titled Anil Devlal vs. Ravindra Singh Patwal and others, pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal, arising out of Case Crime No. 3 of 2015, Police Station Dhumakot, under Section 506 IPC, and the summoning order dated 11.08.2017, are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.

12.06.2025 SB (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018-----Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal 7 Ashish Naithani J.