Arvind Kacholiya State Of U.P. And Another vs. State Of U.P. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected. The Court found that the case of the co-accused, Anurag Mundhra, was distinguishable on facts from the applicants' case. The interim protection granted to Anurag Mundhra was based on his specific assertion of not being a proprietor or partner of the firm registered with the GST department, which was not established for the applicants. The Court reiterated the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, that the initiation of civil proceedings is no bar to the initiation of criminal proceedings. Therefore, the Court found no good ground to interfere with the charge-sheet and summoning order and rejected the application.

Facts

The applicants, Arvind Kacholiya and Kaushal, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge-sheet and summoning order related to a criminal case. The FIR alleged that the first informant, running Aroma Textiles, developed business relations with Arvind Kacholiya of Siddharth Textile. Between February 14, 2017, and September 8, 2021, Aroma Textiles purchased clothes worth Rs. 36,16,077/- from Siddharth Textile, with Rs. 12,65,053/- paid. For the outstanding amount, Arvind Kacholiya issued three cheques on February 15, 2021, which were dishonoured. The applicants sought to quash the proceedings under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are liable to be quashed on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature and identically placed co-accused have been granted interim relief? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 420 and 406 IPC). Arguments for the applicants: The dispute is civil in nature, and the applicants' case is identical to that of a co-accused, Anurag Mundhra, who was granted interim relief by a coordinate bench of the High Court in Crl. Misc. Application No. 29697 of 2022. They relied on the order granting interim relief to Anurag Mundhra. Arguments for the State: The prayer for quashing should be opposed. The interim protection granted to co-accused Anurag Mundhra was based on the ground that he was neither the proprietor nor a partner of the firm registered as a proprietorship firm in the GST department, a fact that distinguishes his case from the applicants'. The State relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi: 2021 SCC online (SC) 206.