[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Deepak Goyal vs State Of Haryana And Another on 10 March, 2026

CRM-M No.8676 of 2023 (O&M)                    1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                       CRM-M No.8676 of 2023 (O&M)
                                       Reserved on: 04.02.2026
                                       Pronounced on: 10.03.2026

Deepak Goyal

                                                           ......Petitioner
                                     Versus

State of Haryana and another

                                                           ...... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present:    Mr. Lalit Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

            Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

The extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court, by virtue of

Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been invoked by the petitioner through this petition.

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR

No.0289 13.05.2022, for the commission of offence under Sections 34, 406,

420, 467, 468 and 471 [Section 201 added later on] of Indian Penal Code,

Police Station City Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.

2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner

is being prosecuted in a case arising out of above mentioned FIR as an

accused. He is aggrieved of the above mentioned prosecution.

3 Heard.

1 of 11

4 It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the present case

on the face of it is an abuse of process of law. According to learned counsel for

the petitioner the high handedness committed by the police authority can be

judged from the fact that with regard to same allegations the complainant had

approached the learned Court of learned Judicial Magistrate by filing a

complaint, and in the above mentioned complaint an application under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved. As per learned counsel for the petitioner in the

above mentioned complaint dated 03.04.2022 the status report from the police

was called which was submitted on 20.04.2022. As per learned counsel for the

petitioner while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

learned Court of Judicial Magistrate did not find it appropriate to refer the

matter to the police for registration of FIR and therefore, the case was posted

for preliminary evidence of the petitioner. It has been further contended by

learned counsel for the petitioner that in the above mentioned scenario the

complainant-respondent No.2, hereinafter being referred to as 'respondent

No.2' only, had withdrawn the above mentioned complaint on 24.05.2022.

5 It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that in the meantime in utter violence of settled principles of law, and in

collusion with police authorities, the respondent No.2 approached the police

authorities and got the FIR lodged on 13.05.2022. While claiming that

allegations contained in the complaint, which has been withdrawn, and the FIR

are identical, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that

once the complaint has been dismissed by the Court of learned Judicial

2 of 11

Magistrate, any FIR with regard to the same set of facts could not have been

registered by the police.

6 In the alternative, it has been contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the bare contents of the complaint filed by the respondent No.2,

which forms the basis of FIR in question, makes it abundantly clear that the

dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is a dispute of civil

nature arising out of business transactions between the two. According to

learned counsel for the petitioner since there is no element of mens rea, for

cheating, in the business dealings between the petitioner and the respondent

No.2, and the issue between the two parties is with regard to settlement of

account, and payment of dues, only civil remedy for the redressal of grievance

of complainant is permissible. According to learned counsel for the petitioner

by twisting the facts a different colour has been given to the dispute between

the parties and the FIR has been lodged.

7 The above mentioned arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner have been controverted by learned State counsel, being assisted by

the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. It has been contented by learned

counsel for the respondent No.2 that in the present case the filing of FIR by the

police is not illegal in any manner, whatsoever, as the police authority has got

independent right to register the FIR, as and when it comes across that a

cognizable offence has been committed by the petitioner.

8 With regard to above, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2

has contended that before filing of complaint in the Court of learned Judicial

3 of 11

Magistrate the respondent No.2 had filed a complaint before police authority

and requested the police authority to take action against the petitioner, but for a

long time when police authority did not take any action on the complaint of

respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 filed a complaint. As per learned

counsel for the respondent No.2, when the complaint was pending in the

learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, on 13.05.2022 the FIR in question was

lodged by the police authority, and therefore, the respondent No.2 in a bona

fide manner withdrew the complaint on 24.05.2022. While claiming that no

impropriety or violation of law has been committed by the respondent No.2,

the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has defended the action taken by

the police, i.e. registering the FIR for the prosecution of petitioner.

9 It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 that this argument of learned counsel for the petitioner has got

no force that the dispute between the parties is with regard to settlement of

account or payment of dues. It has also been controverted by learned counsel

for the respondent No.2 that the dispute between the parties is a dispute of civil

nature. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has

argued that, in fact, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2

is not a plain dispute wherein there is an issue with regard to settlement of

account. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact, the sequence

of events makes it abundantly clear that right from the very beginning the

intentions of the petitioner were dishonest & mala fide, and that is why by

issuing a cheque which was not honoured, they procured goods from the

4 of 11

respondent No.2, and thereafter, refused to make the payment.

10 The learned State counsel while controverting the arguments

addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner has defended the action taken

by the police by filing the FIR. According to learned State counsel in the

present case the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate has sought report from

Police Station, Civil Line Bhiwani whereas the FIR has been lodged in Police

Station City Bhiwani. According to learned State counsel since the report was

sought from a different police station, the authorities in Police Station City

Bhiwani were not aware of the pendency of the complaint, or any other

proceedings which might have already taken place, and thus, ignorant of the

above mentioned development the FIR was lodged despite the fact that the

complaint was already under consideration before the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate.

11 In addition to above, the learned State counsel has also pointed out

that the sequence of events are also important as the complaint before the

police authority, by the respondent No.2, was filed on 27.03.2022 but FIR on

the above mentioned complaint was lodged on 13.05.2022 after thorough

inquiry. According to learned State counsel, in the meanwhile, i.e. after

27.03.2022 the respondent No.2 filed a complaint in the Court of learned

Judicial Magistrate on 03.04.2022 in which the report by police station Civil

Line was filed on 24.04.2022, and thereafter, the complaint was withdrawn on

24.05.2022. While claiming that the action has been taken by Police Station

City Bhiwani in a bond fide manner in accordance with law, the learned State

5 of 11

counsel has contended that there is no force in the contention raised on behalf

of the petitioner. As per learned State counsel the present petition deserves

dismissal.

12 The record has been perused carefully.

13. At the very outset, it is relevant to mention here that in the present

case two questions arise:

i) Whether the dispute pertaining to FIR in question is a dispute of

civil nature?

ii) As to whether the FIR can be lodged by the police with regard

to commission of offence, qua which already a complaint has

been dismissed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate?

14. As far as the first point is concerned to determine the same the

contents of the FIR are of utmost importance. The contents of the FIR in

question shows that the respondent No.2 had complained to the police that the

complainant is a private limited company and 'Sh. Binit Agrawal' was

authorized by the Board of Director to file the complaint against the petitioner

on behalf of complainant-company. As per respondent No.2 the complainant-

company was having business dealing with a company known as 'M/s Mahavir

Oil Seed Agriculture Product Private Limited' and its constituents 'Sh. Deepak

Goyal' and 'Smt. Sharda Devi'. According to complainant it had supplied

goods i.e. Sampuran Palmolive Oil, Soybean Oil etc. to the company of

petitioner and that as per usual practice the cheques were issued by the

petitioner with regard to payment of price of above mentioned supplied goods.

6 of 11

The complainant has further alleged that subsequently it was found that the

cheques issued by the petitioner-company were not honoured by the banker,

and that despite repeated request the petitioner-company has failed to make the

above mentioned payment, and thus, the complainant has been cheated.

15. With regard to above mentioned allegations, when the complaint

was filed by the complainant in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, the

learned Judicial Magistrate Bhiwani, vide order 07.04.2022, called a status

report from the SHO Police Station Civil Lines Bhiwani. The above mentioned

status report was submitted by the SHO Police Station Civil Line Bhiwani

wherein it was mentioned that the dispute between the petitioner and the

respondent No.2 was of civil nature.

16. In the light of above mentioned report if the factual matrix of the

present case is analysed it transpires that the entire allegations contained in the

FIR makes it abundantly clear that the only grievance of the respondent No.2-

complainant is that, that with regard to the goods supplied by the respondent

No.2, to the company of petitioner, payment was not made. Apparently, the

above mentioned dispute is a dispute of civil nature and the only remedy

available for the redressal of above mentioned grievance lies in the Civil

Court.

17. In the present case another essential component to be taken into

consideration is that, that for the commission of an offence under Section 420

IPC the presence of mens rea is essential. If the contents of the entire

complaint are looked into, it transpires that there is no convincing ground

7 of 11

showing that there existed any mens rea on the part of petitioner to cheat with

the complainant.

18. While dealing with the similar situation the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of 'Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh & Anr.' AIR 2024 (SC) 4531, has observed that prosecution of

cases on charges of criminal breach of trust for failure to pay the consideration

amount in case of sale of goods if flawed to the core. As per the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India there can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the

consideration but no criminal complaint is maintainable.

19. Similarly, in the case of 'Veer Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar

Agarwal and another', 2007(3)RCR (Criminal) 960, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India has observed that non-payment or under payment of the price of

the goods by itself does not amount to commission of offence of cheating or

criminal breach of trust.

20. In the case of 'Hridaya Ranjan Verma and others Vs. State of

Bihar and another', 200(4) SCC 168, it has been observed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India that it depends upon the intention of accused at the

time to inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but this

subsequent conduct is not the sole test. According to the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution

for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intentions are shown right at the

beginning of the transaction. It has been further observed that to hold a person

guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest

8 of 11

intention at the time of making the promise and that on mere failure to keep the

promise subsequently, this inference cannot be drawn that he had culpable

intention right at the beginning.

21. Similarly in the case of 'Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R.

Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.' 2025(2) PLR 107, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India has observed that mere failure to pay money in a civil

dispute does not constitute a criminal offence and that filing of FIR in a civil

dispute to recover money amounts to an abuse of process of law. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court has further observed that civil dispute should be resolved

through appropriate remedy and not throughly criminal proceedings.

22. Similar issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in the case of 'M/s Shikhar Chemicals Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

& anr.' Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11445 of 2025, in the

abovementioned case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that

criminal proceedings in a case of pure civil dispute constitute abuse of process

of law.

23. If the factual matrix of the present case is analysed in the light of

above discussed settled principles of law, from the contents of the FIR it

transpires that apparently the dispute between the parties is a dispute of civil

nature. The same observations were recorded in the report dated 20.04.2022

submitted by the SHO Police Station Civil Line Bhiwani. In addition to above,

it is also apparent that there is no element of mens rea on the part of petitioner

thus, the point of determination No.1 framed in this petition is hereby

9 of 11

answered accordingly, i.e. in favour of petitioner.

24. As far as, second point of determination is concerned there are

two components pertaining to abovesaid point:-

i) that the FIR was lodged in Police Station City Bhiwani and the

Police Station City Bhiwani under the given mechanism, was

not supposed to be aware of fact that the complainant had

already filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate, and in the above mentioned complaint the learned

Judicial Magistrate had called for status report from the Police

Station Civil Lines Bhiwani. Thus, in the absence of any

knowledge the FIR has been lodged by presuming that a

cognizable offence was made out on the basis of content of

complaint. Thus, no fault can be attributed to the SHO Police

Station City Bhiwani, who registered the FIR;

ii) that the complaint filed by the complainant before the Court of

learned Judicial Magistrate was withdrawn before the

cognizance could have been taken there upon, by the learned

Judicial Magistrate.

Thus, it is hereby held that on this ground the FIR does

not deserve to be quashed, that with regard to same set of

allegations the complaint was dismissed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate.

10 of 11

25. As a sequel to findings on the above mentioned two points of

determination it is hereby held that by twisting the facts a case of civil nature

has been given the colour of criminal case, and the factual matrix of the

transactions shows that filing of FIR by the respondent No.2 against the

petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Hence, finding merit in

the present petition the same is hereby allowed and qua petitioner the FIR in

question, and all the proceedings, as a consequence to above mentioned FIR,