[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Brij Mohan Painuly And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 11 December, 2025
2025:UHC:11070
Judgment Reserved on : 10.11.2025
Judgment Delivered on : 11.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.1904 of 2021
Brij Mohan Painuly and Another .....Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Another ...Respondents
Presence: Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the Applicants.
Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned counsel for the State.
Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the Applicants, namely Brij Mohan Painuly
and his son Lalit Mohan Painuly, seeking quashing of the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 69 of 2021, titled State vs. Brij Mohan
Painuly and others, pending before the Court of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The Applicants further seek quashing of
the charge-sheet submitted in the said case, as well as the cognizance
and summoning order dated 04.04.2021 passed by the learned
Magistrate, whereby they were summoned to face trial for offences
punishable under Sections 406, 506 and 120 B IPC.
2. The genesis of the criminal proceedings lies in a complaint lodged
by Respondent No. 2, Manoj Dhoundiyal, wherein it is alleged that the
Applicants had failed to return certain amounts claimed to have been
taken from the complainant in connection with a family property-related
issue. Based on the complaint, an FIR was lodged and an investigation
was undertaken by the Police, culminating in the submission of a charge-
sheet under the aforementioned penal provisions. Upon receiving the
1
Criminal Misc. Application No.1904 of 2021, Brij Mohan Painuly and Anr. Vs. State and Anr.-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11070
charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued
summons to the Applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the entire
dispute is civil in nature and arises out of financial transactions within an
extended family. It was urged that even if the complaint is taken at its
face value, no act of entrustment is alleged so as to attract Section 406
IPC. It was further submitted that mere failure to repay money cannot,
by itself, constitute criminal breach of trust unless dishonest intention at
the inception of the transaction is shown, which is not the case here.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicants further submitted that the
essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC
are wholly absent, since there is no allegation that at the time of
receiving the money, the Applicants had any fraudulent or dishonest
intention. The complaint, even if accepted in its entirety, reveals at best a
dispute relating to monetary refund arising out of family arrangements,
which cannot be given the colour of a criminal offence.
5. It was next submitted that the offence under Section 506 IPC is
also not made out, as the allegations regarding threat or intimidation are
vague and lacking in particulars. Learned counsel argued that the
allegations have been made only to bring in a penal provision and exert
pressure, and no specific, credible or proximate act of criminal
intimidation has been disclosed.
6. Learned Counsel for the Applicants further submitted that the
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in a routine and mechanical
manner, without applying judicial mind to the material on record. It was
2
Criminal Misc. Application No.1904 of 2021, Brij Mohan Painuly and Anr. Vs. State and Anr.-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11070
contended that the summoning order dated 04.04.2021 does not reflect
any consideration of the legal ingredients of the offences alleged and is,
therefore, vitiated. According to the Applicants, the summoning order is
cyclostyled in nature and does not record any reasons, thereby rendering
it unsustainable in law.
7. Learned AGA appearing for the State submitted that the charge-
sheet has been filed after due and proper investigation and that the
material collected by the Investigating Officer prima facie discloses the
commission of the offences alleged. It was contended that, at the stage of
cognizance and summoning, the Court is required only to ascertain
whether a prima facie case exists, and that the adequacy or sufficiency of
the evidence is not to be evaluated at this stage. Learned AGA further
argued that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in
proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Learned AGA further submitted that the High Court, in exercise of
inherent powers, should exercise restraint and should not interfere unless
the case falls squarely within the parameters laid down for quashing. It
was contended that the investigation had culminated in a charge-sheet
and that the contents of the complaint, the statements recorded during
the investigation, and the nature of the allegations reveal that a case for
trial is made out; therefore, the proceedings should not be quashed at this
stage.
9. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 supported the submissions
of the State and submitted that the complaint discloses that the
Applicants had taken money and failed to return it despite repeated
requests. It was urged that the conduct of the Applicants shows dishonest
3
Criminal Misc. Application No.1904 of 2021, Brij Mohan Painuly and Anr. Vs. State and Anr.-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11070
intention and refusal to honour their commitments, which, according to
Respondent No. 2, attracts criminal liability. Learned counsel argued that
the complaint and the statements recorded during the investigation
sufficiently establish the involvement of the Applicants and justify the
summoning order.
10. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 lastly submitted that the
allegations made in the complaint are serious and that the Applicants
should face trial. It was contended that interference under Section 482
CrPC at this stage would thwart the prosecution and deny justice to
Respondent No. 2.
11. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
12. The central question for consideration is whether the allegations in
the complaint, taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, make
out the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 506 and
120 B of the IPC, to justify the continuation of the criminal proceedings
in Criminal Case No. 69 of 2021.
13. Insofar as the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406
IPC is concerned, the foundational requirement is that there must be
entrustment of property or dominion over property to the accused,
followed by dishonest misappropriation or conversion. A careful reading
of the complaint discloses that the allegations relate to money given in
the course of an internal family financial arrangement. There is no
assertion that the money was entrusted for a specific purpose, nor any
indication that the Applicants had dominion over such money in any
fiduciary or special capacity. Absence of entrustment is fatal to the
invocation of Section 406 IPC.
4
Criminal Misc. Application No.1904 of 2021, Brij Mohan Painuly and Anr. Vs. State and Anr.-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11070
14. Even if it is assumed that money was handed over, the material
indicates that the transaction was essentially civil in nature, arising out
of personal or family financial understanding. A mere failure to return
money or honour a financial commitment, without more, does not
constitute criminal breach of trust. The Supreme Court has consistently
held that where the dispute relates to payment or refund of money, and
where there is no clear allegation of dishonest intention at the inception,
criminal prosecution under Section 406 IPC cannot be sustained.
15. With respect to the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the
law is well settled that the complaint must disclose a fraudulent or
dishonest intention at the time when the alleged representation was
made. A subsequent inability or failure to repay money, arising from
changed circumstances or financial hardship, cannot be treated as
evidence of initial fraudulent intention. In the present case, there is no
allegation that at the time the Applicants received the money, they had
any fraudulent intention. The grievance of Respondent No. 2 is that the
amount was not refunded despite the request. This allegation, even if
accepted as true, does not satisfy the legal requirement of deception at
inception.
16. The offence under Section 506 IPC also does not appear to be
made out. The allegations relating to threat or intimidation are vague,
general and lacking in particulars. There is no specific act attributed to
the Applicants which could reasonably cause alarm or compel
Respondent No. 2 to part with money or refrain from any act.
Allegations of threat, when stated in such broad and indistinct terms,
cannot constitute criminal intimidation.
5
Criminal Misc. Application No.1904 of 2021, Brij Mohan Painuly and Anr. Vs. State and Anr.-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11070
17. The allegation of conspiracy under Section 120 B IPC also cannot
survive independent examination. When the substantive offences
themselves are not made out, the charge of conspiracy cannot stand in
isolation. No material has been brought on record to show any meeting
of minds or pre-arranged plan between the Applicants to commit any
unlawful act or to pursue a lawful act by unlawful means.
18. The investigation in the present case has culminated in a charge-
sheet; however, the existence of a charge-sheet does not dilute the duty
of the Court to examine whether the basic ingredients of the offences are
disclosed. The Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC, is required to assess whether the allegations, taken as a whole,
disclose a prima facie offence. If the allegations do not satisfy the
statutory ingredients, the continuation of criminal proceedings would
amount to an abuse of the process of law.
19. On an overall consideration, the allegations in the complaint, even
if accepted as wholly true, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the
offences under Sections 406, 506 or 120 B IPC. The dispute appears to
be essentially civil in nature, relating to the refund of money within a
family arrangement. The criminal process cannot be permitted to be used
for exerting pressure in a civil dispute.
20. Continuation of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 69 of 2021
in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of the
Court. The present case falls within the parameters where interference
under Section 482 CrPC is warranted in order to secure the ends of
justice.
6
Criminal Misc. Application No.1904 of 2021, Brij Mohan Painuly and Anr. Vs. State and Anr.-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11070
ORDER
In view of the foregoing observations, this Court is satisfied that
the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during
the investigation do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 506 and 120 B IPC. The dispute between
the parties is essentially civil in nature, and the continuation of the
criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court.
Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application
under Section 482 Cr.P,C is allowed.
The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 69 of 2021, titled
State vs. Brij Mohan Painuly and others, pending in the Court of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, arising out of the
charge-sheet submitted in this matter, are hereby quashed.
The cognizance and summoning order dated 04.04.2021 passed by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, summoning
the Applicants for offences under Sections 406, 506 and 120 B IPC, is
also quashed.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
11.12.2025
Arti
Criminal Misc. Application No.1904 of 2021, Brij Mohan Painuly and Anr. Vs. State and Anr.-
Ashish Naithani J.
