Gautam Munjal And Another vs. The State Of Hp And Another

Held

The Court held that the allegations in the FIR, specifically the damage to the leased property and the alleged theft of articles, do not merely represent a civil dispute but disclose a case of mischief and theft. Therefore, the judgments cited by the petitioner, which dealt with converting civil disputes into criminal proceedings, were not applicable. The Court also affirmed that the availability of an arbitration clause does not preclude criminal proceedings, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal. Furthermore, the Court noted that a charge-sheet had been filed before the learned Trial Court, and as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Iqbal v. State of U.P., the Trial Court should be allowed to appreciate the materials collected during the investigation. Consequently, the petition to quash the FIR was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioners to file a discharge application before the Trial Court. The observations made were confined to the disposal of the petition and would not bear on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioners, Gautam Munjal and another, sought to quash an FIR registered for offences under Sections 316(2) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was filed by the co-owner of 'Hotel Golf Grand', alleging that the petitioner leased the property for 20 years at ₹1.5 lakhs per month plus 18% GST. The petitioner allegedly failed to pay rent for five months, altered the property's structure, removed fixtures, and stole visitor registers and tax books. The informant claimed to have spent ₹50,00,000/- on renovation. The petitioners contended that the FIR was false, lodged out of vengeance, and that the informant breached the lease agreement by failing to obtain necessary licenses. They also cited force majeure due to flooding in July 2023 and stated they vacated the property as per the informant's email. The dispute, they argued, was civil in nature and covered by an arbitration clause.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose the commission of an offence under Sections 316(2) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, warranting the quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The dispute is essentially civil, arising from a lease agreement. The FIR was registered with malicious intent to wreak vengeance. The essential ingredients of the alleged criminal offences are missing. The existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement should lead to quashing of criminal proceedings. Reliance was placed on judgments like Rikhab Birani & anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, Naresh Kumar & another vs. The State of Karnataka and another, Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors, Sarabjit Kaur vs State of Punjab & Ors., and Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Revenue/State's arguments: The allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, specifically damage to property and dishonest removal of fixtures. The Court, exercising inherent jurisdiction, cannot delve into the correctness of FIR allegations. Sufficient material was found during investigation to file a charge sheet. The matter is pending before the Trial Court, and inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised. The availability of arbitration is no bar to criminal proceedings.