Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 512 (RAJ)

Vikram Kailas v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-24

FARJAND ALI

body2025
ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. By way of filing this instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 27/2021 dated 13.05.2021, registered at Police Station Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer, along with all consequential proceedings, including the pending investigation before the Superintendent of Police, Additional (Crime and Vigilance), Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, for the alleged offences under Sections 420 , 406 , and 120-B of IPC . 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant, respondent no. 2, filed a written report before PS Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer, alleging that his construction firm executed civil works for Mytrah Energy (India) Private Limited (MEIPL) at project sites in Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan during 2015-18. While payments were made until 2018, an outstanding amount of Rs.66,51,720, along with interest, remained unpaid. Despite an assurance by MEIPL to clear dues in three installments, discrepancies arose between the complainant’s claim of Rs.81,04,192 and MEIPL’s records reflecting Rs.58,09,889. A partial payment was made, but objections were raised regarding exclusions. It was further alleged that an agreement/MoU was executed, and despite multiple follow-ups and a legal notice, the outstanding amount was not cleared. Consequently, an FIR was registered, and investigation was initiated. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3187/2021 before this Court, wherein an interim order dated 06.07.2021 restrained their arrest while directing them to join the investigation. Pursuant thereto, they submitted relevant documents before the investigating agency. The Public Prosecutor, relying on the police report dated 30.11.2021, informed that a negative final report was proposed, which was taken on record, leading to the disposal of the petition as infructuous on 03.12.2021. Subsequently, the petitioners received a notice dated 28.04.2022 from the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime & Vigilance), Jodhpur, requiring them to rejoin the investigation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations are frivolous, contractual in nature, and that MEIPL had already made substantial payments. They asserted that deficiencies in the complainant’s work led to financial adjustments, including costs for rectification and penalties under contractual terms. They alleged that the FIR was lodged with ulterior motives to exert pressure for unwarranted payments. 4. Heard the learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 5. They asserted that deficiencies in the complainant’s work led to financial adjustments, including costs for rectification and penalties under contractual terms. They alleged that the FIR was lodged with ulterior motives to exert pressure for unwarranted payments. 4. Heard the learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 5. A meticulous perusal of the FIR and the factual report submitted by the investigating agency unequivocally demonstrates that the allegations stem from a commercial transaction between the complainant and Mytrah Energy (India) Private Limited (MEIPL). The complainant’s own assertions, as recorded in the FIR, explicitly establish that his firm has been engaged in engineering and construction work for nearly 15 years and that it was awarded wind power projects by MEIPL pursuant to formal Work Orders/Service Orders issued between 2015 and 2017. The complainant further avers that the contractual obligations were duly executed to the satisfaction of MEIPL. 6. These admissions render it palpably evident that the dispute pertains to alleged non-payment of outstanding dues, a claim that remains contested due to discrepancies in financial reconciliation. The police investigation has also categorized the dispute as civil in nature. This fortifies the legal proposition that where the foundational allegations fail to disclose mens rea or an intention to deceive from inception, the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC (cheating) remain unfulfilled. It is a settled principle that a mere breach of contractual obligations does not ipso facto give rise to criminal culpability unless fraudulent or dishonest intent existed at the time of the inception of the transaction. 7. It is well settled that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted as a tool for arm-twisting in commercial disputes. The complainant himself acknowledges that payments were made until 2018, and the dispute essentially pertains to the quantum of outstanding dues, which were subject to financial adjustments, including rectification costs and contractual penalties. The allegations in the FIR, when scrutinized holistically, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust) or Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy). 8. The criminal law should not be set into motion where civil remedies suffice. When the police authorities themselves have arrived at a finding that the case is of a civil nature and does not attract criminal provisions, allowing the investigation to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. 8. The criminal law should not be set into motion where civil remedies suffice. When the police authorities themselves have arrived at a finding that the case is of a civil nature and does not attract criminal provisions, allowing the investigation to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 , laid down parameters for quashing criminal proceedings where continuation thereof would amount to abuse of the process of law. In the present case, the FIR appears to have been lodged with an ulterior motive to pressurize the petitioners into making payments that are otherwise disputed in civil forums. 10. Given that the dispute is purely of a civil nature and that the necessary elements for invoking criminal liability under Sections 420 , 406 , and 120-B IPC are conspicuously absent, permitting the continuance of the present proceedings would be a travesty of justice. It is a well-established principle that criminal law cannot be used as a substitute for enforcing contractual obligations or debt recovery. 11. Accordingly, the present Misc. petition is allowed. This Court is inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. 12. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the FIR No. 27/2021 dated 13.05.2021, registered at Police Station Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer, along with all consequential proceedings, including the pending investigation before the Superintendent of Police, Additional (Crime & Vigilance), Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur, is hereby quashed. 13. The stay petition disposed of.