Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Kumar Agarwal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115186
Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31264 of 2009
Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Agarwal and Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Senior Advocate, Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing chargesheet dated 24.11.2006 under sections 409, 406, 420 IPC in pursuance of FIR dated 09.10.2006 registered as Crime No.1382 of 2006 under sections 409, 420, 406 IPC, P.S.Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun pending as Case No.20 of 2007 (State vs. Ramesh Kumar and others) before the Court of C.J.M. Jalaun (Orai) or to stay further proceedings of the case during pendency of the application.
3. The applicants herein are the partners of a registered firm running in the name and style, M/s Shanti Constructions. There was a bid of P.W.D. wherein the applicants' firm applied. Since the bid was found suitable a contract was issued to the firm and an agreement was executed between P.W.D. and M/s Shanti Construction for repair of the road. As per the contract, the firm started repair of the road but the same was not completed within time i.e. till 24.06.2006. The applicants' firm moved an application seeking extension of time for completion of work, which was allowed and the work was then completed within the extended time period. However, on 09.10.2006 an FIR has been lodged by Executive Engineer of P.W.D. alleging therein that the work was not completed in time and even the work, which was done by the firm, was of inferior quality. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted on 24.11.2006 and summons were issued on 04.01.2007. By means of instant application chargesheet dated 24.11.2006 as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case have been challenged.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that in the agreement executed between the applicants' firm and the P.W.D., there is an arbitration clause and if there was any dispute or lack in providing service, the same was to be adjudicated upon by means of arbitration proceedings. He further added that Clause 25.2 of the agreement clearly lays down arbitration clause. He further submitted that undoubtedly there was delay in carrying out the repair of road but the same was condoned and time extension to complete the work was granted by PWD, as such, there was no occasion for the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. to lodge the instant FIR. He next submitted that the applicants have invoked the arbitration clause and vide order dated 19.04.2014, the Arbitrator has awarded Rs.34 lakh to the applicants. This award was challenged by PWD before the District Court, Jalaun at Orai under Section 34(2)(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and has already been rejected vide order dated 29.07.20217 and the arbitral award dated 19.04.2014 has been affirmed. The aforesaid order of rejection has not been challenged any further and the same has already attained finality and even the payment was made on 18.08.2018. He further submitted that the dispute between the parties is of purely civil nature, which has illegally been given colour of criminality. He submitted that the entire criminal proceedings is nothing but pure abuse of process of law and surprisingly, the court below had issued summons against the applicants in a very mechanical manner without properly looking into the facts of the case. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naresh Kumar and another vs. The State of Karnataka and another, (2024) 0 Supreme (SC) 221. Relevant para 7 of the aforesaid judgment is quote below for ready reference :
"7. Essentially, the present dispute between the parties relates to a breach of contract. A mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case, as held by this Court in Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and another (2023) 5 SCC 360. Similarly, dealing with distinction between the offence of cheating and a mere breach of contractual obligations, this Court, in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Keral, (2015) 8 SCC 293, has held that every breach of contract would not give rise to the offence of cheating, and it is required to be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise."
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that the dispute between the parties is not only of civil nature but an element of criminality is also involved in it. He submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants and the same requires no interference by this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Evidently, an agreement was executed between the applicants' firm and the P.W.D. and when the work was not completed in time, the application for time extension was allowed and then the work was completed in time. Undoubtedly, if there was any dispute between the parties, the same was adjudicated by the Arbitrator and an award was passed in favour of the applicants on 19.04.2014. It is further evident that the said award was challenged before the District Court but the same was dismissed and the award has attained finality.
8. Keeping the aforesaid facts in mind and in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar's case (supra), the instant proceedings, which is an outcome of commercial dispute, cannot be allowed to continue.
9. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed and consequently, hargesheet dated 24.11.2006 under sections 409, 406, 420 IPC in pursuance of FIR dated 09.10.2006 registered as Crime No.1382 of 2006 under sections 409, 420, 406 IPC, P.S.Kotwali Orai, District-Jalaun pending as Case No.20 of 2007 (State vs. Ramesh Kumar and others) before the Court of C.J.M. Jalaun (Orai) is quashed.
Order Date :- 16.7.2025
Manish Himwan
