IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O.No.79 of 2011. Judgment Reserved on: 13.6.2011. Date of decision:17th June, 2011. Madan Lal and others. ….…Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1No. For the Petitioners: Mr.Shashi Shirshroo, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing F.I.R. No. 53 of 1994 registered with Police Station Enforcement Wing South Zone, Shimla. The petitioners stand charged for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420,467,471,477-A, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations made in the F.I.R. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement?yes. 2 2. At this stage, what requires to be noticed is that an order has been passed by the learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla in this case directing that in view of Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in CBI Vs. Braj Bhushan and others, AIR 2001 S.C.4014, the offences under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were committed at Delhi irrespective of the fact that the conspiracy and abetment to commit such offences was hatched at Shimla. Therefore an application being Cr.M.P No. 3-S/4 of 2011 moved by Parmil one of the accused that the offence was committed at Delhi and there is no jurisdiction to try the case in the Court at Shimla, was allowed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India to urge that since the material on record did not disclose commission of any offence, continuation of the proceedings since 1994 till date is an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the proceedings deserves to be quashed and set aside. He submits that even assuming the worst case against the petitioners, all that can be said is that according to the regulations applicable for advancement of loans, at best, a civil liability is made out but not criminal offence. Learned counsel submits that civil suits for recovery of this amount are pending in Delhi and that 1/2 cases for arbitration proceedings were initiated. He submits that his case is totally covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Limited Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate,(1998) 5 SCC 749 and B.S.Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675. 3 4. Second submission made by the learned counsel is that it is pure and simple case of civil liability and criminal liability is not attracted. Learned counsel refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another (2009) 8 SCC 751. 5. Adverting to the submission, it is equally well settled that though a question purely of civil nature cannot be made the subject matter of criminal proceedings but at the same time, the Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and Iridium India Telecom Limited Vs. Motorola Incorporated and others, (2011) 1 SCC 74 has held that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences. 6. At this stage, sifting to the evidence with a fine tooth comb is not permissible as held by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. M.Devendrappa and another, AIR 2002 SC 671. 7. In R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, the court has held that F.I.R. can be quashed if it is an abuse of the process of law and when no case is made out. However, at the same time a detailed examination of the evidence cannot be undertaken by this Court at that stage. The order of the learned Special Court, only returns the challan to be filed before a Court of competent jurisdiction. I do not find any challenge having been made by the State to this order returning the challan. 8. In these circumstances, as and when the challan is presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction, it will be open to the petitioners 4 herein to take all such objections with respect to the maintainability of the case. Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 17,2011(R)