Radhanath Pattanayak And Ors. vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Held

The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed merely because it involves a commercial transaction or a potential civil remedy, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar. The Court found that the FIR was not bereft of basic facts to constitute the alleged offences. Specifically, the allegations of intent to cheat from the inception and the subsequent communication dated 10.12.2018, which allegedly attempted to defeat the complainant's claim, were considered sufficient to warrant investigation. The Court also noted the allegation that debit notes relied upon by the petitioners to defeat the complainant's claim were forged documents. The Court emphasized that the question of whether the petitioners antedated the debit notes with an intent to defraud is a matter of trial. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is precluded from holding an inquiry into disputed questions of fact or conducting a mini-trial. Therefore, the Court concluded that the intent of the petitioners was a matter for trial and resisted the temptation to delve into such territories. Consequently, the petition to quash the FIR was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. This FIR was a second attempt after a previous FIR, registered on 09.02.2022, was quashed by the High Court on 02.06.2022, with liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint complying with the requirement of an affidavit. The Supreme Court upheld this order. The complainant then filed a fresh complaint, leading to the impugned FIR dated 15.07.2022. The complainant alleged that the petitioners, directors of M/s. Arcotech Limited, had intentionally cheated them by not paying for metal scrap supplied between 22.04.2017 and 28.01.2018, valued at Rs. 3,96,03,130/-. The petitioners allegedly acknowledged liability but later claimed the material was defective and forged debit notes to support this claim, which the complainant contended was false and done to usurp their money.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR, involving a commercial transaction and allegations of cheating and forgery, is liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Petitioner's contention: The FIR is based on a commercial dispute and civil remedy is available, making criminal proceedings an abuse of process. They argued that the allegations are absurd and improbable, and the FIR should be quashed as per the guidelines laid down in the judgment, particularly where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. They also highlighted that the debit notes were produced for the first time before the NCLT on 17.08.2019, and their validity is disputed. Revenue/State contention: Not recorded in the judgment, but implicitly, they argued that the allegations of cheating and forgery are serious and warrant investigation, and that criminal law and civil law can run concurrently. They relied on the principle that an FIR cannot be quashed solely because it involves a commercial transaction or can be a cause of action for a civil remedy, citing Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar).