Nitin Dwivedi vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Nitin Dwivedi, filed a petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking to quash FIR No. 637 of 2023 and charge-sheet No. 674 of 2023, both registered by Police Station Sakri for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner contended that there was a commercial relationship with respondent No. 2, Alok Surya, involving the supply of building construction materials. The petitioner claimed to have supplied materials on various dates in 2023 and paid GST on an amount of Rs. 49,95,000/- received on March 31, 2023. The petitioner alleged that the FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 to give a criminal color to a potential civil dispute, especially after the petitioner had lodged a complaint against respondent No. 2's son. The petitioner also noted that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was pending on the same story, and he had been granted anticipatory bail.

Held

The Court held that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR, or charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. While acknowledging the power to quash proceedings if the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, the Court noted that in the present case, a charge-sheet had been filed against the petitioner after the completion of the investigation. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to quash the FIR or the charge-sheet at that stage. The Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., leaving it open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the learned trial court for appropriate relief at an appropriate stage. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings, including FIR No. 637 of 2023 and charge-sheet No. 674 of 2023 under Section 420 of the IPC, initiated against the petitioner should be quashed. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, stemming from commercial transactions involving the supply of building construction materials. He contended that the FIR was lodged with malicious intent to give a criminal color to a civil dispute, particularly after the petitioner had filed a complaint against the son of respondent No. 2. The petitioner further argued that the pendency of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the same facts rendered the current criminal proceedings liable for dismissal. The petitioner relied on the fact that anticipatory bail had already been granted. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned State counsel opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.