Ltd. and others v. State of U.P. and another
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87350 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20900 of 2016 Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Dwivedi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vaibhav Prakash Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
"19. It is true that the appellant could seek discharge in course of the proceeding itself before the concerned Court, but here we find that no case at all has been made out that would justify invoking the machinery of Criminal Courts. The dispute, per se, is commercial in nature having no element of criminality." 5. Per contra, learned counsel A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that in the FIR it has been stated that O.P. no.2 has sent legal notice to the applicants for payment of the disputed amount. The FIR version has fully been corroborated by the statement of informant and other witnesses recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that there is no illegality in the chargesheet, cognizance order and the entire proceeding of the case, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is evident that there was some business transaction between the parties and some amount was outstanding. Even in the reply to the legal notice sent by O.P. no.2 regarding the outstanding amount, the applicants have only mentioned that they have made the payment to representative of O.P. no.2 but no document has been produced to show that any amount has been paid by them. Admittedly, there is an outstanding amount, which has not been paid by the applicants. It is evident that certain amount has to be paid by the applicants but they chose not to pay the amount and want that O.P. no.2 file a civil suit wherein for years to come the matter will remain pending and the amount will not be given to O.P. no.2. As such, allowing this application will not bring any justice to O.P. no.2. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389 in paragraph 11 has held as follows:- "11. The inherent power of the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should be sparingly used. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings. In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned is a well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved." 9. In the matter of Punit Beriwala vs The State of NCT of Delhi and others, 2025 INSC 571, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "It is trite law that mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. This Court is various judgments, has held that simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the Court to conclude that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court. This Court is of the view that because the offence was committed during a commercial transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admin.) (2009) 5 SCC 528, Lee Kun Heed v. State of UP (2012) 3 SCC 132 and Trisuns Chemicals vs. Rajesh Aggarwal (1999) 8 SCC 686.] 10. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Sharma vs. Emgee Cables and Communication Ltd. and another, 2025 INSC 571. 11. Even though the parties having civil remedy can pursue the criminal proceedings, if any iota of criminality is involved. In this case, evidently the applicants have usurped money of opposite party no. 2 and just to cheat him, they are not paying back the amount. The element of criminality as well as mens rea do exist in this case, hence it will not be wrong to say that the criminal proceedings can be initiated for the criminal action as well as civil proceedings can be initiated for recovery of money. 12. The case in hand is a perfect case where the applicants are trying to take advantage of slow process of law by forcing O.P. no.2 to file a civil suit which would actually amount to misuse and abuse of legal process. 13. In view of aforesaid discussions as well as the settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as enumerated above, I see no illegality in the impugned summoning order. 14. The instant application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri Vaibhav Prakash, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash chargesheet dated 11.11.2013 and the entire proceedings of Case No.27597 of 2016 (State vs. Yogesh Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.197 of 2013, u/s 420, 406, 384 IPC, P.S. Nazeerabad, District-Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of C.M.M, Kanpur Nagar or to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case during the pendency of the present application. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that applicant no.1 is proprietor of M/s Nice Engineering and Fabricators and applicant no.2 is proprietor of M/s Mamta Engineering and Fabricators. O.P. no.2 is partner of M/s Shakti Steel Traders wherein the other partner is Ram Prakash Khandelwal. The applicants were doing business of steel with O.P. no.2 from 01.04.2009 up to 01.04.2011. According to O.P. no.2, applicant no.1 has not paid 3,97,830.50 and applicant no.2 has not paid ₹ 11,45,463/- as amount due in lieu of business transaction. On 15.03.2013, O.P. no.2 sent a legal notice to applicants, in reply whereto applicants have stated that the entire amount has been paid to the authorized agent of Ram Prakash Khandelwal to B.K. Shukla and Mukesh Singh. Thereafter, on 24.08.2014 an FIR has been registered against the applicants as Case Crime No.197 of 2013 u/s 420, 406, 384 IPC, P.S. Najirabad, District-Kanpur Nagar wherein chargesheet has been filed on 11.11.2013 and thereafter cognizance has been taken on 23.05.2016 by the court below. The chargesheet dated 11.11.2013 and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case have been challenged by means of the instant application. ₹ 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present matter relates to commercial dispute between the parties, which has been admitted in the FIR. He next submitted that if there is any amount due it can be recovered by way of filing a civil suit and no criminal prosecution could be initiated for recovery of said amount. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248:2024 INSC 626 and in Sachin Garg vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024 INSC 72. Paragraph 19 of the judgment of Sachin Garg (supra) is quoted below :-