Gujarat High Court
Narendrakumar Champalal Chhajer vs The State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 19/08/2025
Pronounced On : 09/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 18450 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NARENDRAKUMAR CHAMPALAL CHHAJER
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NARENDRA L JAIN(5647) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the
petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-
"(a) To quash and set aside the FIR being I-
C.R.No.11191042200095 of 2020 registered with Satellite
Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under
section 406, 409, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
(b) pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this
petition, to stay further proceedings of FIR being I-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
C.R.No.11191042200095 of 2020 registered with Satellite
Police Station, Ahmedabad.
(c) To pass any other and further orders as may be
deemed fit and proper."
2. Facts leading to filing of this petition reads as under :-
21. That complaint is filed on behalf of company Shriram
Transport Finance Ltd. by one Devangbhai Kumudchand
Kapadia. It is asserted in the FIR that the complainant entered
into an agreement with one Anupam Finlease India Limited on
01/03/2010 regarding doing the business of vehicle finance on a
franchisee basis. Pursuant to the said agreement, the company
Anupam Finlease was required to forward files to the
complainant company based on which finance was to be given to
various persons. As per the agreement, Anupam Finlease India
Limited was required to collect the EMI's from the customers and
deposit it with the complainant company within 72 hours, failing
which the complainant was liable to charge interest @ 36% p.a
on the amount. There are various other clauses in the agreement
along-with the clause for arbitration. It is thereafter alleged in
the FIR that between the period 2010 and 2018, the accused
herein collected a total amount of Rs.18,78,578/-from a total of
19 customers but did not deposit the amount with the
complainant. For the said alleged non deposit of money, the
present FIR came to be registered on 11/03/2020.
3. Accused no.1 - Narendrakumar Champalal Chhajer is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
before this Court seeking quashment of FIR inter-alia on the
ground mentioned in the petition memo.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Jain for the petitioner mainly
submitted that plain reading of FIR indicates that commercial
transaction has been given color of criminality. It is submitted
that it is transaction between two companies viz. Shriram
Transport Finance Company Ltd. and M/s. Anupam Finlease
(India) Ltd. It is further submitted that the petitioner being
Director of M/s. Anupam Finlease (India) Ltd. cannot be held
liable in absence of company as accused. It is further submitted
that concept of vicarious liability is unknown to the criminal
jurisprudence. It is further argued that issue is in regard to the
settlement of account between two companies but complainant
instead of settling account on civil side, by filing FIR attempted
to settle the account which is impermissible. It is submitted that
agreement between the parties contains arbitration clause.
According to arbitration clause, any dispute differences, claims
and questions between two companies has to be firstly have
arbitration, but in the present case ignoring arbitration clause
with a view to pressurize the petitioner, present FIR under
section 406, 409, 420, 114 of IPC is filed.
3.2. Learned advocate further submitted that FIR in question is
absurd and abuse of process of law. Argument is also canvassed
to the extent that commencement of time of alleged offence is
01.03.2010 is ending on 25.07.2018 and yet FIR is filed on
11.03.2020. There is gross delay in registering FIR which
indicates and demonstrate that FIR is used as weapon to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
pressurize the petitioner to recover outstanding amount. It is
submitted that even from that view point FIR is nothing but
criminal color of civil dispute. Learned advocate Mr.Jain would
further submit that even if liability of company arises, it is that
of M/s. Anupam Finlease (India) Ltd. and not of personal liability
of the petitioner.
3.3. Mainly on above submissions, learned advocate for the
petitioner submitted that FIR is abuse of process of law and
intention to file FIR is to recover amount by passing civil remedy.
Hence, it is alleged that FIR is malicious and vexatious and
therefore, it is submitted to all the petition and quash FIR.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Manish Patel for
complainant company would submit that quashing petition is
filed at threshold i.e. on filing of FIR. He would submit that
investigation is yet not carried in its true prospective. It is
submitted that M/s. Anupam Finlease (India) Ltd. Is represented
by its Managing Director - Narendrakuma Chhajer. He was
franichisee of Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. He
would further submit that first agreement was executed on
(Annexure C) and second agreement was executed on (Annexure
B). These agreements were signed by the petitioner as authorized
representative and Managing Director of M/s. Anupam Finlease
(India) Ltd. He would further submit that as per franchise
agreement, the petitioner was required to carry business of
Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. for extending loan to
the prospective loanees and to collect installment from loanee
and to forward to the Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
after keeping his margin. Learned advocate Mr.Patel further
submitted that upto the year 2018, work was going on smoothly,
however, in the year 2018, the petitioner closed his company
and eloped. Complainant company inquired through their
sources and found that the petitioner has obtained various
amount as many as 19 loanee and did not forward it to the
complainant company, thereby the petitioner has prima facie
committed offence under section 406, 420 and 409 of IPC.
Learned advocate Mr.Patel further submitted that uptil now no
useful investigation is carried in the FIR. Investigation of the
offence is writ large, let police to investigate the offence. It is
further submitted that since investigation is going on, contention
of the petitioner that M/s. Anupam Finlease (India) Ltd. has not
been joined as accused would not survive, if investigation is
carried to that extent and if it comes on record, even M/s.
Anupam Finlease (India) Ltd. can be arrayed as accused. It is
further submitted that since investigation is at initial stage, it
prima facie establish that the petitioner having obtained
installment for repayment of loan from as many as 19 people
and did not forward to the complainant company, and thereby
has committed financial fraud in tune of Rs.18,78,578/-
Therefore, learned advocate Mr.Patel submitted not to exercise
extra-ordinary power to quash the FIR at threshold.
5. Learned APP also submitted that investigation is at very
initial stage. Thus contention of the petitioner that company is
not joined as accused would not survive. Arguments of learned
advocate Mr.Patel is adopted by learned APP.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, at the
outset, let refer FIR to understand dispute between the parties (it
is in Gujarati, for better understanding it is translated in
English):-
"My name is Devang Kumudchandra Kapadiya, - Age about
- 44 years, Occupation - Job, Resi. at - P/17, Tax Shila
Coloney, Nr. Old Aaradhna School Road, Raman Nagar,
Mani Nagar, Ahmedabad City, Cell no. - 9825422240.
I state my remaining personally present, I state the facts of
my complaint that, I am residing with my family at the
aforementioned address. I am serving as Managar sincle
last 10 years in the Office of Shri Ram Transport Finance
Company Limited located at 301-A-wing, Baleshwar Square,
Opp. Iskon Temple, S.G. High Way, Ahmedabad. The said
company is a Public Limited (company) and its Registered
Office is at - Third Floor, Complex no. 4, Lady Desika Road,
Mailapur, Chennai. The work of our company is to provide
loans for vehicles. Our Company also provides Franchise to
other companies, in which the contract and conditions has to
be decided and the work is to be carried out accordingly.
Earlier it (the franchise) was given to one of the
Company namely Anupam Finlease India Ltd. having its
registered office at - 36, Second Floor, Wal Trax Road, S.P.
Complex, Sov Carpet, Chennai on 01/03/2010. A Contract
was also executed with it, wherein it was decided that - this
Company will have to get / bring the customers, verify their
documents, provide them the loans through our Company
and to collect the installments of loans from the customers. It
was decided from our Company to give commission of this
work to this Company.
Thereafter, this Anupam Finlease India Ltd. Company
- the Proprietor of which is Narendra Champalal Chajara -
Resi. at -A-9, Third Floor, Arihant Vaikunth Appt., no. 123,
124, 125, Briklin Road, Pura Seivakam, Chennai and his
another office was located at 18 - Vanijya Bhavan, Opp.
Diwan Ballubhai School, Kankaria, Maninagar, Ahmedabad,
which was operated by his Manager - Mr. Ravji and
according to the Contract executed with the said Company,
their company had to bring the customers, carry out
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
verification of the documents/ papers, do the filing and have
to submit these files to our Company. Our Company was
providing loans to the customers upon these files. Then, this
Company used to collect the installments of these loans and
our Company used to give commission of it. Such kind of
work according to the Franchise was continued since the
year -2010.
But - suddenly the contact with their Company was stopped
on 25/07/2018. Then on investigating through our persons,
it came to know that Anupam FinLease India Ltd. Company
have closed their both the offices at Chennai and
Ahmedabad and fled away. Meanwhile, the Proprietor of
this Anupam FinLease India Ltd. had collected the
installments of some of the customers to whom the loans
were provided through our Company and have not deposited
in our Company as per the Contract of Franchise.
List of customers and their amount of installments which
have been received by Anupam FinLease Company are as
follows ;
Sr. Name of Customers Amount Rs.
no.
1. Vinod Govind Bhavsar 1,28,877/-
2. Rajesh Vinodrai Solanki 1,37,800/-
3. Ashish Prahlad Gurjar 69,950/-
4. Ajay Prahlad - of Vanod 83,222/-
5. Ramu Bhala Vaghri 1,14,421/-
6. Sajid Vali Tarakvadiya 76,733/-
7. Hiren Tribhuvan Solanki 1,31,360/-
8. Manish Karshan Kaurkhaniya 83,159/-
9. Mina Mukesh Barad 1,26,061/-
10. Mohd. Kasim Noormiya Shaikh 56,700/-
11. Raman Jivan Thakkar 1,20,241/-
12. Kamlesh Ranchhod Parmar 1,12,830/-
13. Rafik M. Bhas 56,750/-
14. Hasan Gabu Aarab 1,28,398/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
15. Girish Mafa Ravat 87,036/-
16. Vinod Premchand Sheth 1,09,754/-
17. Sanjay Chhagan Chavda 86,441/-
18. Chetan Soda Detroja 1,02,255/-
19. Pratap Nagar Bhusadia 66,590/-
The receipts were also been issued to all these persons
(customers) about receiving the amount from Anupam
Finlease India Ltd.. But all these amounts have not been
deposited in our Company as per the Contract of Franchise.
Hence, we have issued Notice earlier, but no any reply has
been received till date. So, today we have informed the M.D.
of our Company namely - Umesh Revankar and have came
to lodge this complaint.
Thus on last dt. 01/03/2010, this company namely Anupam
Finlease India Ltd. have committed criminal betrayal with
our Company as well as with our customers by obtaining
Franchise of our Company which is Shri Ram Transport
Finance Co. Ltd., by providing customers, approving loans,
collecting total installments of Rs. 18,78,578/- against the
loans provided by our Company, issuing receipts to the
customers about receiving of amount and by not depositing
this amount in (the accounts of) our Company, by doing so,
they have committed a fraud with us.
Hence, I lodge this complaint to carry out police investigation
against Mr. Narendra Champalal Chajjar - Proprietor and -
Mr. Ravji, Manager of Ahmedabad Office of this company
namely Anupam Finlease India Ltd. My witnesses will be all
the aforementioned customers as well as staff members and
those etc. who are found out during the police investigation.
I hereby produce the copies of - executed Contract, receipts
issued to the customers and Affidavits of the customers.
The said facts of my complaint is true and correct as
dictated by me."
7. Documents on record i.e. two franchise agreement; one
executed on 13.02.2006 (Annexure C) and another executed on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
01.03.2010 (Annexure B) establish relationship between
complainant and petitioner. Agreement dated 01.03.2010
witness as follows :-
Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. (hereinafter
referred as First Revenue Sharing Party - FRSP) and M/s.
Anupam Finlease (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Other
Revenue Sharing Party - ORSP)
Whereas
(1) FRSP is inter alia engaged in the business of financing for
the purchase of new and used commercial/non commercial
(Goods and Passenger) vehicles and accessories.
(ii) ORSP is also engaged in the business of Financing and
has necessary expertise, infrastructure and personnel for
assessing the credit worth of the customers, processing,
disbursing, collecting and recovering loans.
(ii) Both FRSP and ORSP desire that in addition to doing the
financing business on their own, they may also do the said
business on a non exclusive basis at some locations as they
mutually agree from time to time on revenue sharing
arrangement.
(iv) And accordingly they have decided to carry on the
business on a revenue sharing arrangement (called revenue
sharing business) as per the terms and conditions contained
herein.
NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:
1 WORK ALLOCATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THEIR
OBLIGATIONS
For the sake of convenience and mutual advantage of the
parties, the business work is allocated between them as
under:-
Work allocated to ORSP
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
(a) To identify prospective customers/borrowers who are
desirous of availing finance for purchase of new/used
vehicle,
(b) To collect the proposals and documents as detailed in
Part "A" of Schedule II as amended from time to time and to
verify the genuineness of the said documents.
(c) To evaluate and assess such proposals based on such
criteria and procedures as may be agreed to between the
parties from time to time.
(d) After such evaluation, and with the consent/concurrence
of FRSP and necessary funding, to disburse the loan amount
to the customers/borrowers and to ensure and obtain all
necessary documentation in respect of the same including
Original Invoice, Insurance cover note, R.C. Book copy, post
dated cheques, etc., as detailed in Part B of Schedule II.
(e) To collect from the customers/ borrowers upfront finance
charges if any, as decided by FRSP from time to time.
(f) To follow up with the customers/borrowers and collect the
installment amounts due and penal interest/any other
charges falling due and remit in full, the amount so collected,
to FRSP immediately on receipt of the same.
(d) The amounts collected from the borrowers shall be
remitted in full without delay unmediately on receipt of the
same into the bank account maintained by FRSP. Any delay
in remittance beyond 72 hours of collection, shall entail
payment of interest at the rate of 36% per annum, without
prejudice to the other rights and remedies available to FRSP.
(e) ORSP shall have the right to collect the amounts from the
customers /borrowers by way of cash, account payee
cheques, pay orders and demand drafts. ORSP will be
entitled to issue receipts to clients/customers against receipt
of money in cash/ account payce cheques/pay order or
demand draft. While issuing the receipts against cash
payment, ORSP shall adhere to the laws, rules and
regulations laid by RBI, Income tax or any other statutory
authority and the guidelines laid down by FRSP. On the
basis of statement furnished by the ORSP, in respect of the
collection of installments, dues and other charges, FRSP will
issue receipts to ORSP.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
(f) ORSP shall be responsible to stop the delivery of vehicle
as and when decided and communicated by FRSP,
(g) ORSP shall be responsible to take all ancillary steps
required for recovery of dues from customers defaulting in
payment of installments and penal interest/other charges or
when the cheques issued by customer are dishonored for
any reason whatsoever, for repossession of vehicles, for
storage and sale of such vehicles, for recovery of
outstanding loan amount from the customer on repossession
and such other acts as may be necessary or required or
communicated by FRSP including but not limited to taking
legal steps. For the aforesaid purposes, before and after
seizure/repossession of vehicle, ORSP shall follow the
procedure laid down by FRSP, as communicated from time to
time and shall obtain the prior approval of FRSP before
selling the seized vehicle.
(h) While repossessing the vehicles/equipments, ORSP shall
ensure that repossession activities are conducted in a lawful
manner and without resorting to the use of force and ORSP
or its agents shall not do any act or thing which is illegal
and unlawful, ORSP shall take entire responsibility to
defend any criminal complaint or prosecution arising due to
repossession or seizing by the repossession/seizing agents,
(i) ORSP shall maintain true and faithful records/accounts in
respect of the transactions made by him/ them in relating to
the revenue sharing business and also provide on
fortnightly/monthly basis the details and other relevant
data about the collection made by him/ them from the
transactions which originated through the ORSP, FRSP shall
always have easy access to the records/accounts; data's
maintained by the ORSP for their verification.
(g) To provide statement of accounts to FRSP in connection
with the above transactions.
(h) To seize and repossess the vehicles and equipment in
respect of which a default, in payment of hire charges/loan
installment, has been committed by the
customers/borrowers in accordance with the procedure laid
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
down by FRSP, as communicated from time to time.
(i) To abide by other obligations as may be required in the
conduct of the business and as may be agreed to between
the parties, from time to time.
Work allocated to FRSP
(a) FRSP shall provide necessary funds for financing/lending
for purchase of vehicles by customers/borrowers referred by
ORSP
(b) FRSP shall execute necessary loan documentation with
the customers/borrowers in this regard and disburse the
amount, to the customers / borrowers, through ORSP.
(c) FRSP shall maintain and operate the Bank accounts and
other accounts in respect of the revenue sharing business.
(d) FRSP shall initiate, take and conduct or defend all legal
actions and proceedings in any appropriate legal forum in
respect of the revenue sharing business.
(e) FRSP shall be entitled to formulate a special recovery
action plan to deal with any situation/development which
may arise, which in the opinion of FRSP, may directly or
indirectly have adverse impact on the collection of the
outstanding amount in respect of the revenue sharing
business.
1.1 This Revenue Sharing Arrangement shall not amount to
a Partnership/Association of Persons or any similar entity
between the parties. It is further agreed that unless both the
parties concur, the loan sanction and disbursement should
not be done, FRSP shall develop a complete set of
documentation containing the Manuals and Procedures for
carrying on the revenue sharing business.
1.2 Other obligations of ORSP
(a) ORSP takes sole and complete responsibility for the
genuineness of all the documents. It is liable for all losses if
the documents are found to be fake or forged.
(b) ORSP shall be responsible for the collection of the dues
for all cases originated through it. ORSP shall be entitled to
approach, meet, demand and realize the dues from the
customer/borrower and take all necessary steps in this
direction.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
(c) ORSP shall initiate or defend any legal action in any court
of law only after consultation and prior approval of FRSP
before the institution of any proceeding.
5 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS:
5.1 Either party shall not use the brand name trade name
service marks of other party, in connection with the carrying
on the revenue sharing business" except with the mutual
consent and on the terms and conditions mutually agreed to
in writing
6 CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECRECY
6.1 ORSP acknowledges and agrees that all tangible and
intangible information obtained or disclosed, including all
documents, data, software, papers, statements, manuals
and procedures, any business or customer information,
trade secrets and process of FRSP relating to its business
practices shall be considered to be confidential and
proprietary information,
6.2 ORSP shall ensure that the same is not used or
permitted to be used in any manner incompatible or
inconsistent with that authorized by FRSP. The confidential
information shall be safeguarded and ORSP shall take
necessary action to protect it against misuse, loss or
destruction thereof.
6.3 ORSP acknowledges that in the event of any breach or
threatened breach of the provisions of this clause by it
and/or its employee/s and/or any individual's assigned by
it for the performance of its obligations under this
agreement, it shall be liable to pay damages as may be
quantified by FRSP
7 TERMINATIONS
7.1 Either party may terminate this agreement with a notice
in writing of two months served on the other party. Upon
such termination, all rights and obligations of either party
shall cease, provided that all rights and obligations incurred
prior to termination shall survive and continue in full force
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
and effect till such time they are carried out and fully
complied with.
7.2 Notwithstanding anything contained in this agreement,
FRSP shall also have the right to terminate this agreement in
the manner provided in Clause 16 of this agreement.
7.3 Notwithstanding anything contained herein, during the
notice period and/or upon termination, FRSP shall be
entitled at its sole discretion, to appoint one or more third
parties or its branches of FRSP or other business associates
and delegate to them the right to collect all unpaid
instaliments and amounts due from the
borrowers/customers in the revenue sharing business.
7.4 Upon termination of this agreement, ORSP shall
handover and transfer to FRSP all negotiable instruments,
documents, materials, receipts, books, records, information
or any other property belonging to FRSP that may be in its
possession or in the possession of any of its employees or
agents.
EXTENT AND TERM OF DURATION
This agreement shall be in force with effect from
01/03/2010 and shall be for the duration of one year. The
parties may, at their options, renew or extend the duration of
the term of this agreement on such terms and conditions as
mutually agreed upon "The revenue sharing business" shall
be carried on revenue sharing basis only at the centers and
locations, as mutually agreed, Other location and centers
can be added by mutual consent.
3 RISK AND REWARD PARTICIPATION
The relationship under this agreement requires both the
Parties to participate in the risk and share the rewards in
the manner provided in Schedule 1 of this agreement.
The terms & conditions stated in the schedule are subject to
change during the term of this agreement by mutual consent.
The rewards for any new or additional obligations will be
discussed and mutually agreed upon. Such reward
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
agreement will be bry exchange of letters and upon such
exchange shall be deemed to form part of this agreement.
4 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
4.1 Both the parties agree that they shall comply with all
applicable union, state and local laws, ordinances,
regulations and codes in performing its obligations
hereunder, including the procurement of licenses, permits,
certificates and payment of taxes where required. If at any
time during the subsistence of this agreement. either party is
informed or information comes to either party's attention that
the other party had acted in violation of any law, ordinance,
regulation, or code (or if it is so decreed by any court,
tribunal or other authority) either party shall be entitled to
terminate this agreement by giving one month written notice.
4.2 ORSP confirms that it is not registered with RBI as NBFC
and that the NBF! activity, if any, undertaken by it will not
be in contravention of section 455 of RBI Act as amended
from time to time
4.3 ORSP acknowledges that the revenue sharing business
entirely depends upon the genuineness of the documents as
detailed in Schedule II of this agreement and it shall take
utmost care in verifying the genuineness of the said
documents and it shall exercise utmost care and diligence in
carrying out the work allocated and the obligations under
this agreement and agrees that the ORSP shall be liable for
criminal and/or civil action when the said documents are
found to be forged and/or fabricated or when the ORSP has
been negligent in verification of the genuineness of the
documents. This liability of ORSP shall be in addition to and
without prejudice to its liabilities under Clause 1.4(a) of this
agreement and under para 9 of Schedule 1 of this
agreement.
3 ORSP agrees that it shall not be entitled to assign its rights
and obligations under this agreement and shall not be
entitled to discount or securitize or assign the receivables in
the revenue sharing business.
11 WARRANTY
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
11.1 ORSP shall undertake and guarantee that all
instruments documents/ agreement/record/ information
coming to its are items of value and shall remain the
absolute property of FRSP and that ORSP shall accord to
these items all care in their handling. In the event of loss to
the items while in its possession, ORSP shall compensate
FRSP the full extent of damage that may be suffered by the
latter.
12 FORCE MAJEURE
12.1 If the whole or any apart of the performance of their
respective obligations under this agreement by the parties is
prevented or delayed by causes, circumstances or events
beyond the control of the parties, including delays due to
flood, fire, earthquakes, riots, explosions, wars, hostilities,
acts of the government, or other causes of a like nature
beyond the control of the parties, then to the extent the
parties shall be so prevented or delayed from performing all
or any part of its obligations hereunder, by reason thereof,
despite due diligence and reasonable efforts to do so, then
notwithstanding such cases, circumstances or events, the
parties shall be excused from performance hereunder for so
long as such causes, circumstances or events shall continue
to prevent or delay such performance
13 ARBITRATION
13.1 All disputes, differences, claims and questions
whatsoever which shall either during the continuance of the
agreement or afterwards either between the parties hereto or
their representatives touching these presents or the
construction or application thereof, or any clause or thing
therein contained, or any account or liability between the
parties hereto, or as to any act, deed or omission of any
hereto in any way relating to these presents, shall be
referred to the sole arbitrator to be nominated and appointed
by FRSP. During the course of arbitration the sole arbitrator
so appointed for any reason becomes incapacitated or not
willing to continue with the arbitration, FRSP shall nominate
and appoint another arbitrator and the Arbitrator newly
appointed shall continue the Arbitration proceedings from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
the stage where it was left by his predecessor. Such
arbitration shall be in accordance with and subject to the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or
any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof for the
time being in force.
13.2 All such arbitration proceeding shall be held and
conducted in Chennai and the proceedings of arbitration
shall be in English.
3.3. In the case of any matter requiring to be or permitted to
be referred to the court under the provisions of the
Arbitration and Concillation Act, 1996, the courts at Chennai
shall have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter.
14 SURVIVAL OF PROVISION:
14.1 The terms and conditions of this agreement that by
their nature and contents are intended to survive the
performance hereof by any or all the parties hereto shall so
survive the completion and/or termination of this agreement.
15 SUCCESSORS
15.1 The agreement binds the successors and permitted
assigns of ORSP with respect to all the Covenants herein
and cannot be changed except, by written agreement signed
by both the parties. The term ORSP wherever used in this
agreement shall mean and include its employees, agents
and representatives and their heirs, executors,
administrators, successors and assigns of all such
employees, agents and representatives.
16 DEFAULT
16.1 ORSP acknowledges the longstanding reputation and
goodwill of FRSP and that any breach or default, by it or its
employees, under this agreement will cause irreparable loss
and/or damage to FRSP
16.2 ORSP acknowledges and agrees that the happening of
any one or more of the following events shall constitute a
default committed by it.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
16.2.1 Failure to perform or breach of all or any terms of this
agreement.
16.2.2 Discontinuance of business by it.
16.2.3 A petition for insolvency being filed by or against it.
16.2.4 Any adverse material change in its financial
condition.
16.2.5 Any material change in any of the following which is
adverse in the opinion of FRSP
- The profitability of ORSP
- The scale of business of ORSP
- Any pending litigation against ORSP in respect of any
statutory demands.
- The nature of business carried on by ORSP.
16.2.6 ORSP collecting any amount from the
customer/borrower, which is not authorized under this
agreement and/or without the prior consent of FRSP.
8. Aforesaid agreement indicates that work allotted to
petitioner is to identify prospective customers to collect papers
and forward it to Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. and
also to collect upfront advance and to collect installment amount
due and penal interest and remit the amount so collected to
Shriram Transport Fiance Company Ltd. The petitioner was also
saddled with liability to maintain account and forward the same
to Shriram Transport Fiance Company Ltd. for verification.
There was revenue sharing and the petitioner company was to
receive certain amount towards commission. There are several
other clause in the agreement marking liability on the petitioner.
It is case of the complainant that petitioner continued his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
obligation upto 25.07.2018, but then suddenly contact with
petitioner company is ceased. Relationship which was continued
from the year 2010 has been swayed in the year 2018.
Complainant company inquired through other sources and
found that M/s. Anupam Finlease (India) Ltd. has been vanished
from market. It is further revealed that as many as 19 persons
from whom the petitioner received loan installment did not
remitted to the complainant company, in total Rs.18,78,578/- so
collected by the petitioner company. According to FIR said
amount was not remitted to the complainant company.
9. Offence under section 406, 409, 420 of IPC are alleged
against the petitioner. Section 405 of IPC defines criminal breach
of trust. Section 409 of IPC defines Criminal breach of trust by
public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent. Section 415 of
IPC defines cheating. All three provisions are stated herein under
:-
405. Criminal breach of trust.--
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or
with any dominion over property, dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or
dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of
any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such
trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or
implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such
trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits
"criminal breach of trust".
409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by
banker, merchant or agent.--
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or
with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public
servant or in the way of his business as a banker, mer-
chant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal
breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished
with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
415. Cheating.--
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that any person shall
retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do
or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in
body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
10. Section 405 of IPC requires (a) entrusting any person with
property or with dominion over property; the person entrusted
may dishonestly misappropriate or converting, to his owe use
that property or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that
property or willfully suffering any other person so to do in
violation;
(i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such
trust is to be discharged or
(ii) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of that
trust.
11. When a person allows others to misappropriate the money
entrusted to him, that amounts to a criminal breach of trust (see
: Ram Narayan v/s. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
12. Section 409 of IPC deals with criminal breach of trust by
public servant,or by banker, merchant or agent. In order to
prove any application of said provisions, enstrustment has to be
proved. In order to sustain conviction under section 409 two
ingredients are to be proved. They are (i) the accused, a public
servant, or a banker or agent was entrusted with property of
which he is duty bound to account for; and (ii) the accused has
committed criminal breach of trust. What amounts to criminal
breach of trust is provided in section 405 of IPC and same is
applicable mutandis mutandis to section 409 of IPC (See :
Kailash Kumar Sanwatia v/s. State of Bihar (2003) 7 SCC
399).
13. Section 415 of IPC deals with cheating. It has two parts.
First parts relates to property. Second part need not necessarily
relate to property. In G.V.Rao v/s. L.H.V.Prasad (2000) 3 SCC
693, Hon'ble Apex Court explained scope as follows :-
"While in the first part, the person must "dishonestly"
or :fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any
property; in the second part, the person should intentionally
induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. This is to
say, in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or
fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should be
intentional."
14. In background of aforesaid legal provisions, if we examine
facts of the case, accused being franchisee of Shriram Transport
Finance Company Ltd. - franchiser was obliged with duty to
collect loan installment and remit back to Shriram Transport
Finance Company Ltd. after deducting his commission. For
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
aforesaid task, agreement was also executed between the parties
which carries relationship of principal and agent; complainant
become principal and accused become agent. Accused was
entrusted to collect loan installment and he was to remit the said
amount to the complainant company.
15. FIR, translation of which is reproduced herein above
indicate that petitioner who was entrusted to collect the loan
amount has collected loan installments from 19 different persons
in tune of Rs.18,78,578/-, but he did not remit back to the
franchiser - company (complainant) but used for his own
purpose. He closed his company M/s.Anupam Finlesae (India)
Ltd. at both branches ie. Ahmedabad and Chennai.
16. Aforesaid act of the petitioner prima facie establish that the
petitioner has committed offence of criminal breach of trust and
cheating. Offence of section 409 of IPC was applied on the
ground that there was relationship of principal and agent -
franchiser and franchisee - complainant and accused. Various
contentions was raised by learned advocate Mr.Jain, however, he
did not made any submission that amount stated in the FIR by
the complainant has not been received by the petitioner or he
has not returned the same or remitted to the concerned
company or there is some dispute between franchiser or
franchisee. No such documentary evidence are placed on record.
17. It is settled principal of law that complaint / FIR can be
quashed where allegations made in the complaint even if they
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
are taken on its face value and accepted in entirety, do not
constitute any offence or make out case alleged against accused.
Further, for this purpose, FIR / complaint has to be examined as
whole but without examining merits of allegations. Neither
detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an
assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in
the complaint is warranted. Complaint / FIR may also be
quashed where it is clear abuse of the process of the Court, as
and when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated
with malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where
the allegations are absurd or inherently improbable. The power
to quash FIR shall not however lie used to stifle or scuttle an
legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and
with abundant caution. Apt to note that complaint is not
required to be verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the
offence alleged. If necessary factual foundation is laid in the
complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not
been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed.
Quashing of FIR / complaint is warranted only where the
complaint is so bereft of even basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.
18. One of the argument of learned advocate Mr.Jain was that
civil wrong has been given color of criminality. Account since
was not settled between the complainant and accused,
complainant has filed complaint. I am not impressed by such
submission. It is case where, franchiser entrusted franchisee to
collect loan installment by executing legal contract. Franchisee
having collected installment amount did not remit back to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
franchiser which prima facie attracts criminal breach of trust
and cheating.
19. In the case of Medchl Chemical and Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
v/s. Biological E. Limited [2000 (3) SCC 269], Hon'ble Apex
Court after referring slew of earlier authorities held that criminal
and civil remedy can be perused in diverse situation.
Observations and finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in para 12 to 17
are as under :-
"12. In the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar 1985 SCC
(Crl.) 180 this Court pointed out that the High Court should
very sparingly exercise its discretion under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
13. In L.V.Jadhav v. Shankarrao Abasaheb Pawar [AIR
1983 SC 1219: (1983) 4 SCC 231: 1983 SCC (Crl) 813] this
Court observed:
"The High Court, we cannot refrain from observing, might
well have refused to invoke its inherent powers at the very
threshold in order to quash the proceedings, for these
powers are meant to be exercised sparingly and with
circumspection when there is reason to believe that the
process of law is being misused to harass a citizen."
14. Needless to record however and it being a settled
principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 of
the Code, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be
examined on the basis of the allegation made in the
complaint and the High Court at that stage has no authority
or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its
correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint
shall be taken into consideration without any critical
examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
facie on the complaint. The observation in Smt. Nagawwa v.
Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [1976 (3) SCC 736] lend
support to the above statement of law.
(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the
statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same
taken at their face value make out absolutely no case
against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the
essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against
the accused;
(2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently
absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person
can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused;
(3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in
issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been
based either on no evidence or on materials which are
wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and
(4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal
defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint
by legally competent authority and the like.
The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and
provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where
the High Court can quash proceedings.
58. The same principles would apply mutatis mutandis to a
criminal complaint.
59. We now come to the question as to whether or not a clear
allegation of entrustment and misappropriation of properties
was made by the appellant in her complaint and, if so, was
the High Court justified in quashing the complaint at that
stage. It is well settled by a long course of decisions that for
the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash a FIR or a complaint the High Court would
have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made
in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same
per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or
otherwise of the allegations. In case no offence is committed
on the allegation and the ingredients of Sections 405 and
406, IPC are not made out, the High Court would be justified
in quashing the proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
15. In the matter under consideration, if we try to analyse
the guidelines as specified in Shivalingappas case (supra)
can it be said that the allegations in the complaint do not
make out any case against the accused nor it discloses the
ingredients of an offence alleged against the accused or the
allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable
so that no prudent person can ever reach to such a
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. In the present case, the complaint as
noticed above does not, however, lend credence to the
questions posed. It is now well settled and one need not
dilate on this score, neither we intend to do so presently that
the allegations in the complaint will have to be accepted on
the face of it and truth or falsity of which would not be gone
into by the Court at this earliest stage as noticed above:
whether or not allegations in the complaint were true is to be
decided on the basis of the evidence led at the trial and the
observations on this score in the case of Nagpur Steel &
Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. P. Radhakrishna [1997 SCC (Crl.) 1073]
ought to be noticed. In paragraph 3 of the report this Court
observed:
"3. We have perused the complaint carefully. In our opinion
it cannot be said that the complaint did not disclose the
commission of an offence. Merely because the offence was
committed during the course of a commercial transaction,
would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not
warrant a trial. Whether or not the allegations in the
complaint were true was to be decided on the basis of
evidence to be led at the trial in the complaint case. It
certainly was not a case in which the criminal trial should
have been cut short. The quashing of the complaint has
resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. We, therefore,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the
High Court and restore the complaint. The learned trial
Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint and dispose of it
in accordance with law expeditiously."
16. Be it noted that in the matter of exercise of High Courts
inherent power, the only requirement is to see whether
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
continuance of the proceeding would be a total abuse of the
process of Court. The Criminal Procedure Code contains a
detailed procedure for investigation, charge and trial, and in
the event, the High Court is desirous of putting a stop to the
known procedure of law, the High Court must use a proper
circumspection and as noticed above, very great care and
caution to quash the complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction. Recently, this Court in Trisuns Chemical
Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and others (1999 (5) SCALE
609) observed:
"5. Respondents counsel in the High Court put forward
mainly two contentions. First was that the dispute is purely
of a civil nature and hence no prosecution should have been
permitted, and the second was that the Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Gandhidham has no jurisdiction to entertain
the complaint. Learned Single Judge has approved both the
contentions and quashed the complaint and the order
passed by the magistrate thereon.
6. On the first count learned Single Judge pointed out that
there was a specific clause in the Memorandum of
Understanding arrived between the parties that disputes, if
any, arising between them in respect of any transaction be
resolved through arbitration. High Court made the following
observations:
Besides supplies of processed soyabean were received by
the complainant company without any objection and the
same have been exported by the complainant-company. The
question whether the complainant-company did suffer the
loss as alleged by it are the matters to be adjudicated by the
Civil Court and cannot be the subject matter of criminal
prosecution.
7. Time and again this Court has been pointing out that the
quashment of FIR or a complaint in exercise of inherent
powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme
exceptions (vide State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992
Suppl.(1) SCC 335 and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi
(1999 (3) SCC 259)].
8. In the last referred case this court also pointed out that
merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
denude it of its criminal outfit. We quote the following
observations:
It may be that the facts narrated in the present
complaint would as well reveal a commercial
transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a
reason for holding that the offence of cheating would
elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings
were committed in the course of commercial and also
money transactions.
(9). We are unable to appreciate the reasoning that the
provision incorporated in the agreement for referring the
disputes to arbitration is an effective substitute for a criminal
prosecution when the disputed act is an offence. Arbitration
is a remedy for affording reliefs to the party affected by
breach of the agreement but the arbitrator cannot conduct a
trial of any act which amounted to an offence albeit the
same act may be connected with the discharge of any
function under the agreement. Hence, those are not good
reasons for the High Court to axe down the complaint at the
threshold itself. The investigating agency should have had
the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations
and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such
investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases
as indicated in State of Haryana v.Bhajan Lal (Supra).
17. On careful reading of the complaint, in our view, it
cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the
commission of an offence. The ingredients of the offences
under Sections 415, 418 and 420 cannot be said to be
totally absent on the basis of the allegations in the
complaint. We, however, hasten to add that whether or not
the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct has to
be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led at the trial
in the complaint case but simply because of the fact that
there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does
not by itself clothe the Court to come to a conclusion that civil
remedy is the only remedy available to the appellant herein.
Both criminal law and civil law remedy can be pursued in
divers situations. As a matter of fact they are not mutually
exclusive but clearly co-extensive and essentially differ in
their content and consequence. The object of criminal law is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
to punish an offender who commits an offence against a
person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof
of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases
even his life. This does not, however, affect civil remedies at
all for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents
etc. It is anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is
available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred . The
two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and
impart."
20. Yet in another case of Arun Bhandari v/s. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2013) 2 SCC 801], Hon'ble Apex Court examined the
same issue revisiting earlier pronouncements, in para 25,26,27,
29,30 and 31 held as under :-
26. At this stage, we may usefully note that some times a
case may apparently look to be of civil nature or may involve
a commercial transaction but such civil disputes or
commercial disputes in certain circumstances may also
contain ingredients of criminal offences and such disputes
have to be entertained notwithstanding they are also civil
disputes. In this context, we may reproduce a passage from
Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and
another: -
"8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the
growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the
cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially
and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure
on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to
subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should
ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling
scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at
the same time, it should be noted 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,
even if they also amount to civil disputes. (See G. Sagar Suri
v. State of U.P.[14] and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.
[15])"
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
27. In this context we may usefully refer to a paragraph from
All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. V. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain &
Anr.
"16.....Where a civil suit is pending and the complaint
petition has been filed one year after filing of the civil suit,
we may for the purpose of finding out as to whether the said
allegations are prima facie cannot notice the correspondence
exchanged by the parties and other admitted documents. It
is one thing to say that the Court at this juncture would not
consider the defence of the accused but it is another thing to
say that for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court,
it is impermissible also to look to the admitted documents.
Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is
found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process
of the court. Superior Courts while exercising this power
should also strive to serve the ends of justice."
28. x.x.....xxx..xxx.
29. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions in the field to
highlight about the role of the Court while dealing with such
issues. In our considered opinion the present case falls in
the category which cannot be stated at this stage to be
purely civil in nature on the basis of the admitted documents
or the allegations made in the FIR or what has come out in
the investigation or for that matter what has been stated in
the protest petition. We are disposed to think that prima
facie there is allegation that there was a guilty intention to
induce the complainant to part with money. We may hasten
to clarify that it is not a case where a promise initially made
could not lived up to subsequently. It is not a case where it
could be said that even if the allegations in entirety are
accepted, no case is made out. Needless to emphasise, the
High Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the
Constitution or Section 482 of the CrPC, has to adopt a very
cautious approach.
30. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar
Srivastava, IAS and another[, the Court, after referring to
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
State of Bihar, has observed that the powers possessed by
the High Court under Section 482 of the IPC are very wide
and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution
in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its
decision in exercise of this power is based on sound
principles and such inherent powers should not be exercised
to stifle a legitimate prosecution. This Court has further
stated that it is not proper for the High Court to analyse the
case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in
order to determine whether a conviction would be
sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that
the proceedings are to be quashed. It has been further
pronounced that it would be erroneous to assess the
material before it and conclude that the complaint could not
be proceeded with. The Bench has opined that the
meticulous analysis of the case is not necessary and the
complaint has to be read as a whole and if it appears that
on consideration of the allegations in the light of the
statement made on oath of the complainant that the
ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there
is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide,
frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no
justification for interference by the High Court.
31. In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others, after
referring to the decisions in Hamida v. Rashid and State of
Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, this Court eventually culled
out the following propositions:
"15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said
decisions are:
(1). The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its
inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and,
in particular, a first information report unless the
allegations contained therein, even if given face value
and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no
cognizable offence.
(2). For the said purpose the Court, save and except in
very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any
document relied upon by the defence.
(3). Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of
an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and
pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence
of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4). If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same
by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal
proceedings should not be allowed to continue."
It is worth noting that it was observed therein that one of the
paramount duties of the superior court is to see that person
who is absolutely innocent is not subjected to prosecution
and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable
complaint."
21. In view of above, contention that civil wrong has been given
color of criminality is declined / negated. In diverse situation as
held above both remedy is available. However, in case on hand,
prima facie it is established that entrustment by way of legal
document to recover the installment amount and not remitting
back to the principal by agent attracts offence under section
405, 409 and 415 of IPC. The FIR is therefore, maintainable.
22. Another submission that since there is arbitration clause
in the agreement between the parties, therefore, dispute needed
to be referred to arbitration instead of sending it to learned Trial
Court cannot be accepted, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry v/s.
Rajesh Agarwal [(1999) 8 SCC 686].
23. Lastly it was contended that company has not been joined
as accused, therefore, criminal prosecution is not maintainable
against Director of the company without joining company as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
accused. Though at first blush submission looks attractive but it
cannot be pressed at this stage, the petition is filed at threshold,
yet investigation is not substantially carried. It is always open for
the Investigating Officer to find out truth during investigation.
Therefore, the contention is not accepted at this stage.
24. At this juncture, assistance can be taken from the case of
State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604,
where note of caution has been spelt by Hon'ble Apex Court
saying that power to quash FIR should be exercised sparingly.
Relevant para is extracted as below :-
"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not
be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its
whim or caprice."
25. At initial stage, where cognizable offence is disclosed in
FIR, whether investigation can be thwarted by exercising
inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Ltd.
v/ s. State of Uttar Pradesh [2020 SCC Online SC 958], in
para 41 has held as under :-
"41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision of
the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed
AIR 1945 PC 18, the law is well settled that Courts would
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18450/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
not thwart any investigation. It is only in cases where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the
first information report that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on. As cautioned by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the power of
quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While
examining a complaint, the quashing of which is sought, the
Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR
or in the complaint. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) 7
SCC 659 this Court again cautioned that criminal
proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and
a rarity than an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta (supra), this
Court held that if a perusal of the first information report
leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts
are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since
the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of
activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere."
26. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is found arid of
merits and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is
dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if
any, stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
