Rajasthan High Court
Simara Foods Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:21592]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4109/2023
Simara Foods Pvt. Ltd, Through Its Director Praveen Satpal Jain
S/o Shri Satpal Jain, Aged About 73 Years, Address - B-1/7,
Narayan Poojari Nagar, A.g. Khan Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. M/s MS Agri Proprietorship Firm, Mediator Pritesh
Maheshwari S/o Late Shri Shyam Maheshwari, Address -
B-106, Shrikantpearl, Kalidas Marg, Banipark, Jaipur
(West), Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta with
Mr. Ajay Gadhwal
Mr. R.S. Sinsinwar
Mr. Chitransh Saxena
Mr. Vipul Ojha
Ms. Anisha Yadav
Ms. Nidhi Sharma
Mr. Dharmendra Bairwa
Mr. Adarsh Singhal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP
Mr. Hemant Nahta with
Mr. Naresh Sharma, for complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
JUDGMENT
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :- 10/05/2024
(Reportable)
1. This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred on behalf of the accused petitioner seeking quashing of
the FIR No.239/2022 registered at Police Station Banipark, Jaipur
(West) for offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120B
IPC.
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (2 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
2. Brief facts in a nutshell are that the complainant-respondent
No.2, submitted a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before
the Metropolitan Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metro-II alleging inter
alia that the petitioner induced him into delivering material against
advanced payment by raising proforma invoices. It is alleged in
the complaint that he paid advance amount but neither the
petitioner supplied the material nor returned the advance amount
to him. The complainant also alleged in the complaint that the
petitioner made fraudulent entries in the books of accounts and
usurped his money. The learned trial court sent the matter to the
Police Station Banipark Jaipur for investigation whereupon the
impugned FIR No.239/2022 came to be registered against the
accused petitioner for offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471
and 120B IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner contends that the
impugned FIR is based upon false and fabricated facts. He submits
that both petitioner and the complainant are involved in the
business of pulses and chickpea etc. The complainant was
operating his business with the petitioner through Vardhman
Mehta, proprietor M/s Vardhman Commercial, Mumbai and
M/s Prakash Agro Commodity. He submits that the complainant
while concealing the details of sales, purchase, receipt and
payments made during period form 2018 to 2021, has lodged this
FIR. During the aforesaid period, the complainant has carried out
business of crores of rupees but surprisingly, it has been alleged in
the FIR that the petitioner has not made payments of the
transactions which took place in the year 2017 that too in the year
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (3 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
2022, after an inordinate delay of more than five years. As a
matter of fact, the complainant hatched a conspiracy with
Mr. Vardhman Mehta and made forged entries in the books of
accounts and during audit, when this fact came into the
knowledge of the petitioner, he filed a complaint before Economic
Offence Wing ('EOW') Mumbai and in counter, the complainant had
lodged this FIR. It is also contended that same complaint had
been filed by Mr. Vardhman Mehta before Economic Offence Wing,
Mumbai in which, after preliminary enquiry, the EOW has filed the
complaint of Mr.Vardhman by opining it to be a "Civil Nature"
dispute. In support of this contention, he draws attention of this
Court towards copy of communication dated 05.09.2023 sent by
Sr. Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing Unity-VI (GC-4),
Mumbai to Mr. Vardhman Mehta.
4 Learned counsel thus, contends that the impugned FIR is
nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and it has been
lodged in counterblast of the action taken by the petitioner against
the complainant before EOW, just to harass and humiliate the
petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that after lodging of
the impugned FIR, the petitioner company received notice from
the Police Station Banipark, Jaipur and the petitioner gave detailed
and specific reply to each and every allegations mentioned in the
said notice. Alternatively, he contends that even for the sake of
argument, if the story narrated by the complainant in the FIR is
accepted to be true, then also, no offence is made out against the
petitioner and it would be a civil nature dispute, arising out of
business transactions. Learned counsel contends that the
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (4 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
allegations levelled in the FIR at best may be breach of contract
for which, initiation of criminal proceedings by way of impugned
FIR would amount to abuse of process of law. He has placed
reliance on the following judgments:-
(i). Sachin Garg v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2024 (2)
Supreme 73
(ii). Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2013)
11 SCC 673
(iii). Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in
(2009) 8 SCC 751
(iv). In Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in
(2009) 14 SCC 696
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel for the respondent complainant have vehemently and
fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's
counsel. He submits that the accused petitioner fraudulently
misappropriated the funds of the complainant and thereby
usurped the money of the complainant. Learned counsel for the
complainant submits that despite several reminders to the
petitioner, he has neither delivered the goods nor returned the
advance payment and thereafter, ultimately, the FIR has to be
lodged by the complainant. Learned counsel contends that the
petitioner had no intention to pay from the very beginning and it
has grabbed the due payments of the complainant and in order to
give it a colour of civil dispute, the petitioner fabricated the
accounts and made false entries. As regards the contention of the
petitioner's counsel that at best the dispute is a civil dispute and
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (5 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
hence, the criminal proceedings are not maintainable, learned
counsel for the complainant submits that even in such type of civil
nature disputes, when there is allegation of breach of contract, if
there is any element of breach of trust with mens rea, it gives
rise to criminal prosecution as well and merely on the ground that
there was civil dispute, criminality involved in the matter cannot
be ignored. It is also contended that one FIR with similar and
identical allegations was also registered against the petitioner in
the State of MP and the petitioner filed a misc. petition before
Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein no relief was granted to him.
6. He submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly
cautioned that the inherent powers under Section 482 should be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases. Lastly, learned counsel submits that if this
misc. petition is accepted and the proceedings of the impugned
FIR are quashed, then, such a course would result in miscarriage
of justice and would encourage the accused in repeating the
crimes. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(i). Google India Private Ltd. v. Visakha Industries & Ors.
reported in AIR 2020 SC 350;
(ii). Lakshman v. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2019 (9)
SCC 677
(iii). Rajesh Bjaj v. State of Delhi : reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259
(iv). Sanapareday Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andra Pradesh
reported in (2007) 13 SCC 165
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (6 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
bar and have gone through the material available on record.
8. From perusal of the Impugned FIR one fact is well
established that the petitioner and the complainant have enjoyed
a mutually beneficial business relationship for a significant period
of time. Their association has been characterized by trust,
cooperation, and a shared interest in maintaining a successful
business venture. Perusal of the record clearly indicates that
several business transactions took place in between the petitioner
and the complainant from 2017 to 2022. The complainant in this
FIR alleged that on 29.09.2017, he made advance payment of
Rs.23,29,000/-, 25,00,000/- (total Rs.48,29,000/-) in favour of
the petitioner, but neither the goods were supplied to him nor
margin money was paid to him as the accused petitioner, with
intention to cheat him, made forged invoices as the petitioner was
not having any stock with him.
9. In my considered opinion, when the complainant has already
experienced such a mischievous incident of cheating and fraud,
said to be played by the petitioner with him, then as to why, he
kept on continuing his business transactions for the next five-six
years.
10. The existence of such long-standing business relations raises
questions regarding the credibility and motivation behind the
complainant's decision to initiate criminal proceedings against the
petitioner. Throughout their business relationship, there have been
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (7 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
no prior complaints or legal actions brought forth by either party
against the other. This absence of any previous legal disputes
further underscores the harmonious nature of their business
association, casting doubt on the sudden emergence of criminal
allegations. In cases involving long-standing business relations, it
is not uncommon for one party to leverage the criminal justice
system to gain an unfair advantage or to settle personal scores. In
this particular case, it is evident from the balance sheet of the
complainant's firm that before registration of the FIR, numbers of
orders to supply the goods were placed by both the parties to
each other, which is evident from the material available on record.
11. In such situations where business disputes arise, the Indian
judiciary provides a robust framework for resolving conflicts
through civil litigation. The complainant has the option to seek
civil remedies such as damages, injunctions, or specific
performance or to file suit to recover the dues, which are better
suited to address commercial disputes rather than resorting to
criminal prosecution. It is also to be noted here that parties were
doing business through mediator and in respect of business
disputes between the petitioner, complainant and mediator one
criminal complaint was submitted before the EOW and same was
thoroughly examined and finally it was found that essentially there
is civil dispute between the parties. The same is reproduced
hereinbelow for the sake of ready-reference:-
"To
Mr. Vardhman Mehta
E/601, Kamdhenu Sai Sakshat
Sector-6, Kharghar,
Navi Mumbai -410210
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (8 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
Subject :- Your Complaint applications submitted
against M/s Simara Foods Pvt. Ltd. and it's Director and
owner.
Reference:-Economic Offence Wing, Mumbai,
Preliminary Enquiry No.87/2022
On the basis your applications submitted to E.OW., Mumbai
against M/s Simara Foods Pvt. Ltd. and it's Director and onwers,
this office conducted Preliminary Enquiry vide No.87/22.
During the course of enquiry of said P.E. No.87/22 by this
office, it is revealed that the claim and complaint filed by your
office against M/s Simara Foods Pvt. Ltd. and it's Director and
owners are "Civil Nature"
Hence said P.E. No.87/22 is filed as "Civil Nature" by this
office.
(XXX)
Economic Offences Wingh
Unit-VI (GC), Mumbai"
12. Mere fact that one FIR with similar and identical allegations
was also registered against the petitioner in the State of MP,
wherein no relief was granted to the petitioner by the Hon'ble High
Court of MP, cannot be a ground to throw this petition at
threshold.
13. A careful reading of the complaint, the gist of which this
court has extracted above would show that none of the ingredients
of any of the offences complained against the petitioner are made
out. Even if all the averments contained in the FIR are taken to be
true, they do not make out any of the offences alleged against the
petitioner. Therefore, I am unable to understand how an FIR was
registered and offences have been found proved. When FIR itself
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (9 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
disclosed nothing more than a commercial relationship which
broke, it is not possible for respondent No.2 to enlarge the scope
of his complaint by merely adding the language used in the text of
the Indian Penal Code.
14. After careful consideration of the arguments and material
available on record, this court is of the opinion that the criminal
prosecution should not be allowed when there is a long-standing
business relationship between the parties without any complaint
during last five years. It appears from the FIR that dispute
between the parties is with regard to the rendition of accounts as
it is reflected from the own balance sheet of the complainant that
number of transactions were made between the parties in last five
years. This fact is evident from the email (Annexure-R-2/1) sent
by the respondent complainant himself to the petitioner. The
summary of transactions took place between the parties are
reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready-reference:-
SUMMARY OF TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN MS AGRI AND
SIMARA FOODS PVT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS
FERTINVEST INDIA PVT LTD) DURING PERIOD: 1-JAN-2017
- 15-DEC-2021
TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (INR)
TYPE
ADVANCES/ TRADE PAYMENTS 76,778,252
FROM MS AGRI TO SIMARA
FOODS PVT LTD
PAYMENT AND
SALES
SALES FROM MS AGRI TO 22,941,993
SIMARA FOODS PVT
PURCHASES OF MS AGRI FROM
PURCHASES AND SIMARA FOODS PVT LTD (57,115,462)
PAYMENT
RECEIPT PAYMENT RECIEPT OF M S AGRI (9,630,100)
FROM SIMARA FOODS PVT LTD
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (10 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
DEBIT NOTE FINAL SETTLEMENT OF 2,187,166
FEB/2017-18-002 CHICKPEAS 5FCL SHIPMENT
PERIOD OCT-NOV 2017, SALE
MADE BY MS AGRI ON ACCOUNT
OF SIMARA FOODS PVT LTD
FINAL SETTLEMENT OF PIGEON 937,200
DEBIT NOTE PEAS/TOOR 10(5+5) FCL FOR
AUG/2019-20-001 DELIVERY IN JULY 2019 & 15-
AUG-2019. SALE MADE BY MS
AGRI ON ACCOUNT OF SIMARA
FOODS PVT LTD
DEBIT NOTE RECOVERY OF UNPAID CHARGES 2,327,336
2020-21/001 APN REGARDING ADVANCE FUNDING
TANJANIA PROGRAM/APN
DEBIT NOTE RECOVERY OF UNPAID CHARGES 2,479,943
2021-22/001 VNR REGARDING ADVANCE FUNDING
TANJANIA PROGRAM/VNR
PAYMENT MADE BY MS AGRI TO 81,904
DEBIT NOTE THIRD PARTIES PP
2019-20/002 BAG/WAREHOUSE/LABOURS/TRA
NSPORT. ON BEHALF OF SIMARA
FOODS PVT LTD
INTEREST ON SHORT TERM 6,000
DEBIT NOTE ADVANCE OF INR 7,00,000 MADE
FEB/2017-18-003 BY MS AGRI TO SIMARA FOODS
PVT LTD, ADVANCE MADE ON 15-
JAN-2018 AND REPAYMENT
RECEIVED ON 19-JAN-2018
DEBIT NOTE APR Interest on Simara (Fertinvest) 826,718
21/2017-18-001 01.04.2018 to31.03.2019
DEBIT NOTE APR Interest on Simara (Fertinvest) 1,602,773
21/2018-19/003 01.04.2018 to31.03.2019
DEBIT NOTE APR Interest on Simara 01.04.2019 to 1,718,285
21/2019-20/003 31.03.2020
DEBIT NOTE APR Interest on Simara 01.04.2020 to 1,908,323
21/2020-21/003 31.03.2021
DEBIT NOTE APR Interest on Simara 01.04.2021 to 6,273,924.50
21/2021-22/003 15.12.2021
DEBIT NOTE APR Interest on Rs. 937,200 Debit 267,102
21/2019-20/004 Note No 2019-20/001 from
30.08.19 to 31.03.21
DEBIT NOTE APR Interest on Debit Note No 2017- 50,930
21/2017-18/004A 18/002 from 12.02.18 to
31.03.18
DEBIT NOTE APR Interest on Debit Note No 2017-
21/201718/-004B 18/002 from 01.04.18 to 1,181,070
31.03.21
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (11 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
DEBIT NOTE APR Interest on Debit Note No 2020- 58,534
21/2020-21/004 21/001 APN from 09.02.21 to
31.03.21
FINAL BALANCE RECIEVBALE 54,881,893
FROM SIMARA FOODS PVT
LTD
15. In Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr. reported in
(2009) 14 SCC 696, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
earlier cases regarding scope and ambit of jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and concluded as follows:-
"10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed a question
as to whether any act of inducement on the part of the
appellant has been raised by the second respondent and
whether the appellant had an intention to cheat him from the
very inception. If the dispute between the parties was
essentially a civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract
on the part of the appellants by non-refunding the amount of
advance the same would not constitute an offence of
cheating. Similar is the legal position in respect of an offence
of criminal breach of trust having regard to its definition
contained in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. See Ajay
Mitra v. State of M.P. 2003CriLJ1249.
11. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that the High
Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction only when one
or the other propositions of law, as laid down in R. Kalyani v.
Janak C. Mehta and Ors. (2009)1SCC516 is attracted, which
are as under:
(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.
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (12 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
(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 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.
Yet again, in Hira Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
2009CriLJ2849, this Court held:
12. The parameters of interference with a criminal
proceeding by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code are well known. One of the
grounds on which such interference is permissible is that the
allegations contained in the complaint petition even if given
face value and taken to be correct in their entirety,
commission of an offence is not disclosed. The High Court
may also interfere where the action on the part of the
complainant is mala fide. See also Harmanpreet Singh
Ahluwalia and Ors. v. State of Punjab and
Ors.2009(7)SCALE85."
16. Recently in case of Sachin Garg VS State of U.P. and
another reported in 2024 (2) Supreme 73 Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under:-
14. Past commercial relationship between the appellant's
employer and the respondent no.2 is admitted. It would also
be evident from the petition of complaint the dispute
between the parties centered around the rate at which the
assigned work was to be done. Neither in the petition of
complainant nor in the initial deposition of the two witnesses
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (13 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
(that includes the complainant) the ingredients of the offence
under Section 405 of the 1860 Code surfaced. Such
commercial disputes over variation of rate cannot per se give
rise to an offence under Section 405 of the 1860 Code
without presence of any aggravating factor leading to the
substantiation of its ingredients. We do not find any material
to come to a prima facie finding that there was dishonest
misappropriation or conversion of any material for the
personal use of the appellant in relation to gas supplying
work done by the respondent no.2. The said work was done
in course of regular commercial transactions. It cannot be
said that there was misappropriation or conversion of the
subject property, being dissolved acetylene gas which was
supplied to the factory for the purpose of battery
manufacturing at EIL. The dispute pertains to the revision of
rate per unit in an ongoing commercial transaction. What has
emerged from the petition of complaint and the initial
deposition made in support thereof that the accused-
appellant wanted a rate variation and the entire dispute
arose out of such stand of the appellant. On the basis of
these materials, it cannot be said that there was evidence for
commission of offence under Section 405/406. The High
Court also did not apply the test formulated in the case of
Dalip Kaur (supra). We have narrated the relevant passage
from that decision earlier.
17. While expressing similar view, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Paramjeet Batra VS State of Uttarakhand, 2013 ( 11)
SCC 673 has held as under:-
"7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to
be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (14 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged
therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are
present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A
complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a
criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a
dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak
of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is
available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this
case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal
proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.
8. As we have already noted, here the dispute is
essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its
ownership. The pending civil suit will take care of all those
issues. The allegation that forged and fabricated documents
are used by the appellant can also be dealt with in the said
suit. Respondent 2's attempt to file similar complaint against
the appellant having failed, he has filed the present
complaint. The appellant has been acquitted in another case
filed by respondent 2 against him alleging offence under
Section 406 of the IPC. Possession of the shop in question
has also been handed over by the appellant to respondent 2.
In such a situation, in our opinion, continuation of the
pending criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process
of law. The High Court was wrong in holding otherwise."
18. At this stage, it is to be observed here that at several
instances, this Court has noticed that criminal action are being
used as a threat. Criminal action against a party means they have
to deal with police, court hearings, loss of reputation and a variety
of other kinds of pressure. Hence, to avoid such issues, many
parties succumb to this pressure and concede to the other party.
This raises an issue that is quite prevalent in India--
Criminalisation of Civil Disputes. It is quite common in the Indian
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (15 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
context to cloak a civil dispute of Breach of Contract with a
criminal offence of Cheating.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again has reiterated that
how this trend abuses the judiciary and court process. In
Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and
another, (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Supreme Court noted that :-
"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."
20. India differentiates between criminal law and civil law by
different statutes, different remedies and different punishments.
There are multiple reasons as to why criminalisation of commercial
disputes can be harmful to the legal system. Commercial disputes
are often complex matters involving contractual agreements,
business practices, and interpretations of trade laws and
regulations. Resolving such disputes through criminal prosecution
could lead to overly harsh punishments that may not fit the
circumstances. Maintaining a clear separation between criminal
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (16 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
law (designed to punish conduct that threatens public safety and
welfare) and commercial law (designed to govern the fair conduct
of business dealings) helps preserve the legitimacy and proper
scope of each legal domain.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has been extremely strict while
dealing with such instances in the past. Recently, in the case of
Govind Prasad Kejriwal Vs. State of Bihar & Anr, reported in
(2020) 16 SCC 714, the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that it is
indisputable that the magistrate must use a broad perspective and
consider a prima facie case when conducting the investigation
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. However, even when conducting or
holding an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is
required to take into account a number of factors, including
whether or not even a prima facie case is made out, whether or
not the criminal proceedings that were initiated are an abuse of
the legal system, whether or not the dispute is solely civil in
nature, and whether or not the civil dispute is attempted to be
given a criminal dispute colour.
22. Even cases where rendition of accounts is an important
factor, there should be a strict bar to criminal remedy. It is a
process that is quite common in businesses, criminalising such
commercial offence will not only burden the courts but also halt
several businesses. Section 482 Cr.P.C plays a vital role in
ensuring no civil cases are turned into criminal cases. Inherent
power of the High Courts allow them to quash any such cases
which have been initiated due to malafide incidents. The Hon'ble
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (17 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
Supreme Court in the famous case of State of Haryana & Ors.
v. Bhajan Lal &Anr., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, stated that the
case should be quashed "where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge."
23. Need of the hour is to stop the inflow of frivolous criminal
cases into the legal system. For this, the police should be advised
to conduct preliminary enquiry into the case before filing an F.I.R.
Advocates also simultaneously play an important role in
preventing criminal frivolous litigation. A good advocate should
never condone criminalisation of commercial matters. Courts
should bring heavier sanctions against those who try and abuse
the judicial system. Concluding, it is important to restore faith of
citizens in civil remedies. Steps like speedier resolution of civil
disputes, growth of arbitral tribunals, etc should be promoted.
24. Now a days, it has been noticed that tendency to convert
civil wrongs into criminal offence is growing and people are
intended to settle the civil or commercial dispute with the help of
police as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Mohammad Ibrahim (supra). Now time has come to deprecate this
practice/tendency, and for this advocates as well as courts are
required to be more vigilant. As an advocate serving the Indian
judiciary, his primary duty is to represent his clients in court
proceedings. This involves presenting their case, arguing on their
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (18 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
behalf, and protecting their rights and interests. He must provide
legal advice to your clients on various matters, including their
rights, obligations, and potential legal consequences of their
actions. This advice should be based on his legal expertise and
knowledge of the relevant laws. Simultaneously he is expected to
adhere to high ethical standards and professional conduct. This
includes being honest, diligent, and respectful towards the court,
opposing counsel, and all parties involved in the legal proceedings.
He has a basic responsibility to uphold the rule of law and promote
justice. This involves advocating for fair and equal treatment of all
individuals, irrespective of their social status, and ensuring that
the principles of justice are upheld in the legal system.
As a lawyer serving the Indian judiciary, it is crucial to prioritize
the interests of justice and uphold the principles of professional
ethics. This means that an advocate should not blindly follow the
instructions of clients if they are unethical, illegal, or contrary to
the principles of justice. Advocates have a duty to act in the best
interests of their clients, but this duty is subject to certain
limitations. The Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India
Rules lay down the ethical guidelines that advocates must adhere
to. These guidelines emphasize the importance of maintaining
professional integrity, promoting justice, and upholding the rule of
law. If a client's instructions are in violation of these ethical
guidelines or if they involve engaging in dishonest or unethical
practices, it is the duty of the advocate to advise the client against
such actions. Advocates are expected to provide honest and
unbiased advice to their clients, even if it may not align with the
client's desired outcome. Furthermore, an advocate's duty is not
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (19 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
only towards their clients but also towards the court and the
administration of justice. Advocates are officers of the court and
have a responsibility to assist the court in reaching a just decision.
This duty requires them to present the facts and arguments
honestly and to refrain from misleading the court.
25. In summary, an advocate should not blindly follow the
instructions of clients if they are unethical, illegal, or contrary to
the principles of justice. Advocates have a duty to act in the best
interests of justice and uphold the ethical standards set by the
legal profession.
26. Simultaneously, Courts should not hesitate in quashing the
criminal proceedings which are essentially arising out of civil or
commercial disputes between the two parties as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Paramjeet Batra (supra) and Dalip
Kaur (supra). Police stations can/should not be allowed to work as
recovery agent or to make pressure upon one party of the
litigation in the garb of criminal investigation to settle the civil
disputes.
27. Lastly, before concluding this judgment, this Court,
appreciates the witting efforts and valuable assistance rendered
by learned counsel Mr. Kapil Gupta and Mr. Hemant Nahta.
28. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court
deems it a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for quashing the impugned FIR and all other subsequent
[2024:RJ-JP:21592] (20 of 20) [CRLMP-4109/2023]
proceedings arising out of it as continuance of proceedings of the
impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the FIR No.239/2022 registered at Police Station
Banipark Jaipur and all other subsequent proceedings arising out
of it, are hereby quashed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
Gautam Jain/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
