Chandra Shekhar Dani v. State of Uttarakhand Another

Mr. Jai Krishan Pandey, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the applicant, Chandra Shekhar Dani, seeking quashing of the FIR dated 28.09.2018, the charge sheet submitted thereafter, and the summoning order passed by the learned ACJM, Haldwani, District Nainital.

2. The dispute pertains to alleged non-payment for wooden interior work in the Applicant's residence at Himalaya Farm, Haldwani.

3. The Complainant/Respondent No. 3, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Agarwal, claims to be a furniture contractor and Singhal Small Scale Industries proprietor, engaged in interior woodwork. The total cost of the work was claimed to be ₹11,22,150, out of which ₹6,00,000 was allegedly paid in various instalments. A balance of ₹5,17,150 remained unpaid despite several demands and issuance of a legal notice. 1 Criminal Misc. Application No.1134 of 2019-----Chandra Shekhar Dani vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J.

4. When the Applicant failed to make the remaining payment, the Complainant approached the police. As no FIR was initially registered, he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani. Upon perusing the materials and report, the learned Magistrate found prima facie commission of a cognizable offence and directed registration of the case and investigation. Pursuant thereto, an FIR was registered, and after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted. The court below took cognizance and issued a summons to the Applicant.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil, arising from an alleged contractual transaction for interior work.Learned Counsel emphasized that the invocation of criminal law in a private monetary dispute amounts to an abuse of the process of law. It is further contended that the Complainant has falsely implicated the Applicant by fabricating inflated claims and that the proceedings aim solely to exert pressure to recover money.

7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further submits that the Complainant, in his notice and complaint, falsely stated that he carried out the entire wooden work, while the same was undertaken by one Mr. Bhim Singh Mehra. It is argued that criminal prosecution cannot be maintained where the core allegations, even if accepted, fail to satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, particularly cheating under Section 420 IPC.

8. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 contends that the FIR and charge sheet disclose a clear case of dishonest inducement and cheating.

9. It is submitted that the Applicant took advantage of the Respondent’s trust and local business presence, induced him into executing extensive work 2 Criminal Misc. Application No.1134 of 2019-----Chandra Shekhar Dani vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J. without a formal contract, and thereafter refused to pay the agreed-upon balance. Learned Counsel urges that the Applicant's conduct reflects fraudulent intent from inception, and the Complaint cannot be termed a mere breach of contract.

10. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 further submits that sufficient material was collected during the investigation, including witness statements of Babbu Painter and Bhim Singh Mehra, corroborating the complainant’s version. Having found prima facie evidence, the investigating officer rightly submitted a charge sheet, and the learned Magistrate acted within jurisdiction in taking cognizance. Thus, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is misconceived and deserves dismissal.

11. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for both sides, and upon careful perusal of the FIR, charge sheet, witness statements, and the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, this Court is required to assess whether the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the Applicant would amount to abuse of the process of law and whether any interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted.

12. It is well-settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the sufficiency of evidence at this stage. The only inquiry is whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made in the complaint and supported by the materials in the charge sheet, prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

13. In the present case, the Complainant (Respondent No. 3) has alleged that the Applicant, by deceitfully assuring prompt payment, induced him to undertake extensive wooden interior work at the Applicant’s residence. It is further alleged that, after the work was completed, the Applicant 3 Criminal Misc. Application No.1134 of 2019-----Chandra Shekhar Dani vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J. dishonestly refused to clear a substantial portion of the payment. The FIR and the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, particularly those of Bhim Singh Mehra and Babbu Painter, corroborate the claim that the work was executed under the Applicant’s instructions and that only part payment was made. The Complainant has also provided a detailed, itemised account of the work undertaken and the corresponding charges.

14. If these allegations are taken at face value, they do not merely indicate a civil dispute arising from breach of contract but, prima facie, suggest fraudulent inducement and dishonest intention from the very inception of the transaction. Such averments satisfy the ingredients of Section 415 IPC and, consequently, the invocation of Section 420 IPC cannot be unwarranted.

15. The Applicant’s principal defence is that the dispute is civil in nature. However, the existence of a civil dispute does not exclude criminal liability where the allegations disclose fraudulent or dishonest intention. At this stage, the Court is not required to make a definitive determination as to whether the matter is purely civil or involves criminal elements. Such an assessment falls within the domain of the trial court, which must evaluate the evidence duringthe trial.

16. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the complaint, supporting documents, and the police report, recorded satisfaction that a cognizable offence was made out and accordingly directed registration of the FIR and investigation. Pursuant thereto, the police conducted an investigation and submitted a charge sheet. Based on the material collected, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the Applicant.

17. It is not the Applicant's case that the FIR is baseless, absurd, or malicious or that the proceedings are vitiated by jurisdictional error. The materials on record prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. 4 Criminal Misc. Application No.1134 of 2019-----Chandra Shekhar Dani vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J. Interference at this stage would be premature and unwarranted. The Applicant shall have the full opportunity to present his defence during the trial.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1134 of 2019, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. The proceedings arising out of FIR dated 28.09.2018, registered at Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital, along with the charge sheet submitted therein and the cognizance/summoning order passed by the learned ACJM,Haldwani, shall proceed in accordance with law. Ashish Naithani, J. Dated:04.06.2025 NR/ NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d 95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCD C0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD 03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT 5 Criminal Misc. Application No.1134 of 2019-----Chandra Shekhar Dani vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J.