that FIR lodged by complainant is malicious in nature and even bare perusal of contents of FIR would not constitute any cognizable offence against the petitioners. Bare reading of FIR would reveal that this is a matter of purely civil nature as commercial transactions, which took place from the year 2008 to 2013-14 have been mentioned, where there was some promise to deliver goods and consideration was also tendered against such promise and on account of non-fulfilment of promise, part of the amount was returned back. It was submitted that there was no inducement on the part of the petitioners, nor was there any allegation with regard to entrustment of any amount to the (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:32:37 AM) (Downloaded on 15/10/2025 at 07:08:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:40816] (3 of 8) [CRLMP-3068/2018] petitioners. Hence, the necessary ingredients of Section 415 IPC, which defines cheating as well as 406 IPC , which narrates criminal trust are not there in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, in order to pressurize the petitioners and to avoid the civil litigation, a device has been invented by complainant through criminal complaint and, in case, FIR in question is not quashed, it would cause miscarriage of justice and grave prejudice to the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal misc. petition. It was submitted that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very limited and it cannot be extended to enquire into the insights and scope of allegations, more particularly when FIR shows that the intention of accused-petitioners from the very beginning was to cheat the complainant against a fake and false promise and valuable consideration was also transferred at the inducement of the accused-petitioners by the complainant. It is submitted that nature of the business in question was such that the complainant was required to wait for a long time and since even after 10 years, neither the scrap was delivered, nor the entire amount was repaid, complainant had no other alternative except to lodge criminal complaint against the accused-petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kathyayini Vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors. reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 712, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh Etc. reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 292 and judgment of this Court (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:32:37 AM) (Downloaded on 15/10/2025 at 07:08:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:40816] (4 of 8) [CRLMP-3068/2018] in the case of Ashu Parihar Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017 3 DCR 630.

7. Heard and considered.

8. This Court is mindful of the fact that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited and it can be exercised sparingly only under the circumstances, where there is no apparent and manifest miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law and where a criminal proceeding has been adopted malafidely in the civil transactions.

9. Bare perusal of contents of FIR would reveal that there were explicit and evident business transactions between complainant and accused-petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed the fact that the oral agreement to send the scrap took place in the year 2008 for which amount was tendered by complainant in different instalments from 2008 to 2010 and on account of some difference of opinion and disputes, part of the amount was also returned back by the accused- petitioners in the year 2013-14.

10. Thus, under these circumstances, it is not obvious and apparent from perusal of the FIR that the intention of the accused-petitioners right form the beginning was to cheat the complainant. Hence, there no essential ingredients with regard to cheating are coming out from bare perusal of FIR. The FIR in question is also absolutely silent over the factum of entrustment by complainant to accused-petitioners. Under these circumstances, where there was purely business transactions between accused-petitioners and complainant, in case, there was (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:32:37 AM) (Downloaded on 15/10/2025 at 07:08:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:40816] (5 of 8) [CRLMP-3068/2018] some dispute either with regard to delivery of goods or repayment of money, the obvious remedy available to the complainant was that he shall pursue his cause before the Civil Court and criminalization of civil disputes in such a manner cannot be appreciated by this Court.

11. As regards, the judgments relied upon by the complainant, this Court finds that in the case of Kathyayini Vs. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors. (supra), the dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was altogether different, where compensation of 33 crores received by the accused from Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited was misappropriated and there were no civil or commercial transactions between complainant and accused in the said case. In the case of Ashu Parihar Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), this Court was examining altogether different question as to whether the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act and 420/406 IPC can run simultaneously or not. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh Etc . (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a principle that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot conduct mini trial and is required to confine its jurisdiction to the question as to whether sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not. Thus, the facts and question of law which were involved in the cases relied upon by the complainant are altogether different.

12. So far as jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:32:37 AM) (Downloaded on 15/10/2025 at 07:08:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:40816] (6 of 8) [CRLMP-3068/2018] Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supplement 1 SCC 335 are clear wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that where a criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an alternative motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudges, this Court can very well exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

13. In the case of Sachin Garg v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2024 (2) Supreme 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the commercial transactions between complainant and accused-persons and it was observed in Para-14 of the aforesaid judgment as under:-

"14.Past commercial relationship between the appellant's employer and the respondent no.2 is admitted. It would also be evident from the petition of complaint the dispute between the parties centered around the rate at which the assigned work was to be done. Neither in the petition of complainant nor in the initial deposition of the two witnesses (that includes the complainant) the ingredients of the offence under Section 405 of the 1860 Code surfaced. Such commercial disputes over variation of rate cannot per se give rise to an offence under Section 405 of the 1860 Code without presence of any aggravating factor leading to the substantiation of its ingredients. We do not find any material to come to a prima facie finding that there was dishonest misappropriation or conversion of any material for the personal use of the appellant in relation to gas supplying work done by the respondent no.2. The said work was done in course of regular commercial transactions. It cannot be said that there was misappropriation or conversion of the subject property, being dissolved acetylene gas which was supplied to the factory for the purpose of battery manufacturing at EIL. The dispute pertains to the revision of rate per unit in an ongoing commercial transaction. What has emerged from the petition of complaint and the initial deposition made in support thereof that the (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:32:37 AM) (Downloaded on 15/10/2025 at 07:08:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:40816] (7 of 8) [CRLMP-3068/2018] accused-appellant wanted a rate variation and the entire dispute arose out of such stand of the appellant. On the basis of these materials, it cannot be said that there was evidence for commission of offence under Section 405/406. The High Court also did not apply the test formulated in the case of Dalip Kaur (supra). We have narrated the relevant passage from that decision earlier."

14. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2013 (11) SCC 673, where also the business transactions were criminalised by way of initiating criminal proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para Nos. 7 & 8 as under:-

(Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:32:37 AM) (Downloaded on 15/10/2025 at 07:08:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:40816] (8 of 8) [CRLMP-3068/2018]

15. Recently, in the case of Anukul Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.4250/2025 decided on 24.09.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after examining the principles laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), has held that the dispute concerning repayment of money is purely civil in nature and the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery are not made out from bare perusal of FIR.

16. On the basis of foregoing discussion and after analysing the different principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be safely held that the machinery of criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settlement of civil dispute or to wreak vengeance. Even otherwise, there is no sufficient explanation in FIR for lodging the same with long and unexplainable delay, where the amount was said to be paid by the complainant to the petitioners in the year 2010 and part of the amount was received by them in the year 2013-14, yet FIR was lodged only on 21.03.2018. Hence, the delay in lodging FIR also puts serious question over the bona fide of the complainant.

17. Hence, in view of above, this Court finds it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and to quash and set aside FIR No.0088/2018 lodged by the respondent-complainant against the petitioners along with all other further proceedings, if any. The instant criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioners is accordingly, allowed.

(ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /46 (Uploaded on 14/10/2025 at 10:32:37 AM) (Downloaded on 15/10/2025 at 07:08:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)