Abhishek Singhi And Anr vs. State Of Punjab And Another

Facts

The petitioners, Abhishek Singhi and another, are seeking to quash FIR No. 64 dated February 14, 2020, registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Barnala, and the subsequent final report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The FIR was filed by respondent No. 2, who alleged non-payment of dues and transport charges for his truck, which was allegedly attached with 'M/s Singhi Transport Company' in 2016. The complainant claimed that payments became irregular from March 2018 onwards and that the petitioners, who allegedly managed the company's affairs, had cheated him. The petitioners contend that the dispute is civil in nature, relating to business dealings and settlement of accounts, and that they are not partners or proprietors of the firm, which was a sole proprietorship of the deceased Nippen Kumar. A GST certificate for the firm was submitted as evidence.

Held

The Court held that the present case is squarely covered by the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various cited judgments. Firstly, the dispute between the complainant and 'M/s Singhi Transport Company' is of a civil nature, pertaining to the non-payment of due charges. Secondly, there is no averment in the FIR or the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. indicating that the petitioners were responsible for the day-to-day business of the transport company. Thirdly, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners entered into any direct dealing with the complainant from the very beginning. Fourthly, there is no evidence to suggest any intention not to fulfill the promise made to the complainant right from the inception of the transaction. The Court found that the filing of the FIR and the subsequent report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and the FIR, the final report, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings constitute an abuse of process of law, given that the dispute appears to be of a civil nature concerning non-payment of transport charges and settlement of accounts, as argued by the petitioners? 2. Whether the petitioners can be held liable for cheating under Section 420 IPC when the alleged business dealings were with 'M/s Singhi Transport Company', a proprietorship firm of which they were neither partners nor proprietors, and whether there is any evidence of dishonest intention from the outset of the transaction, as contended by the petitioners? Arguments for the Petitioners: The petitioners argued that the FIR converts a civil dispute over non-payment of dues into a criminal case of cheating, which is an abuse of process of law, citing judicial pronouncements from the High Court and the Apex Court. They further contended that the dispute is solely about recovery of dues or rendition of accounts, and that the petitioners are not liable as they were not partners or proprietors of 'M/s Singhi Transport Company', which was a sole proprietorship of Nippen Kumar. They relied on the GST certificate as proof of the firm's proprietorship. They sought quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Arguments for the Respondents: The State counsel controverted the petitioners' arguments, asserting that there are specific allegations of cheating against the petitioners for making false promises of payment which were not fulfilled. They stated that an inquiry was conducted by a high-ranking police officer before registering the FIR and that no grounds for quashing the FIR were made out.