Allahabad High Court
Sri Surinder Bajaj Proprietor vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93373
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37505 of 2024
Applicant :- Sri Surinder Bajaj Proprietor
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amrit Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Amrit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing summoning order dated 25.04.2017 and the entire proceedings of Case No.04900960 of 2015 (M/s Pradeep Fire Wood vs. Surinder Bajaj) under Section 420 IPC, Police Station-Transport Nagar, District-Meerut pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Meerut.
3. In the instant matter, there was business transaction between the applicant and O.P. no.2 wherein O.P. no.2 supplied goods worth ?2,39,989/-, however the same was not paid and the applicant had no intention of paying the same to O.P. no.2 as well as other creditors, accordingly his company was declared NPA on 30.06.2014. However, even after getting declared as NPA, O.P. no.2 kept asking for his outstanding amount but nothing was paid and the entire endeavour of the applicant was to hold back the payment. Ultimately, the company of the applicant went into insolvency on 10.10.2019 and after lapse of more than five years from the date of supply of goods by O.P. no.2, the amount was not paid. Earlier, a complaint was filed by O.P. no.2 on 08.06.2015 in which it is alleged the applicant has cheated him. After adducing evidence, summoning order has been passed on 25.04.2017, which has been assailed in this application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the company of the applicant has got into insolvency and hence, O.P. no.2 may seek his claim before the IRP. He further informed that bailable warrant has been issued on 01.08.2017 but till date NBW has not been issued against the applicant. He next submitted that delay caused in filing the present application is due to the fact that he was unaware of the present proceedings initiated against him by the lower court at any point of time, which is evident from the order sheets of the lower court, copies whereof have been enclosed along with this application. He submitted that the court below has never recorded any finding before issuance of bailable warrant against the applicant that any summon was served upon the applicant at any point of time. He further submits that the applicant has never committed any offence as alleged against him. He submitted that no case under section 420 IPC is made out against the applicant. Further submission is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rikhab Birani and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2025 INSC 512.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that the summoning order dated 25.04.2017 has been challenged in this application after long gap of almost 8 years and for such a long delay, no plausible explanation has been offered. He submitted that nothing has been brought on record to show that when the applicant became aware of the instant proceedings. He further submitted that the intention of the applicant was very clear right from the beginning as after receiving the goods, he has not paid the outstanding amount to O.P. no.2 and his entire endeavour was to cheat him. It is further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The instant application sans merit on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground of delay in challenging the summoning order, and secondly, on the ground of cheating as admittedly the goods were supplied to the applicant way back in the year 2014 by O.P. no.2, still the payment was not made. It is only after the company of the applicant went into insolvency, the applicant is trying to take shield of the insolvency proceedings for non payment of dues amount by him.
8. So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that no case under section 420 IPC is made out against the applicant is concerned, the same can only be culled out after adducing evidence during trial of the case. The other submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact, which can only be gone through and adjudicated by the trial court during trial of the case.
9. 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."
10. 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.]
11. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Sharma vs. Emgee Cables and Communication Ltd. and another, 2025 INSC 571.
12. 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.
13. The instant application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2025
Manish Himwan
