Patna High Court

PRASAD VAZE @ PRASAD MADHAV VAZEversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided: 27 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SANDEEP KUMAR

Holding

The FIR is quashed as no offence is made out against the petitioners and the prosecution is mala‑fide.

Summary

The petitioners, senior officials of Bajaj Auto Ltd., sought to quash an FIR (Bettiah PS Case No.563/2014) filed on a complaint by ex‑dealer Suman Singh alleging offences under Sections 384, 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 and 34 IPC. The petitioners contended that the complaint lacked the mandatory affidavit, the magistrate had not applied his mind while invoking Section 156(3) CrPC, and that the allegations were purely civil/commercial in nature with no criminal act attributable to them or the company. The High Court examined the statutory requirements for registering an FIR, the elements of the alleged offences, and the principle that vicarious liability requires the company to be made an accused. It held that none of the statutory elements of the listed offences were satisfied, the prosecution was mala‑fide, and the matter was a civil dispute. Consequently, the FIR was quashed.

Issues considered

The validity of the FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC in the absence of an affidavit as required by Section 154(1).
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose cognizable offences under Sections 384, 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 and 34 IPC.
Whether senior officials of a company can be held vicariously liable when the company itself is not named as an accused.
Whether the dispute is a civil/commercial matter and therefore not amenable to criminal prosecution.
Whether the magistrate exercised sufficient judicial mind while taking cognizance of the complaint.

Legislation cited

Companies Act — s. 1956
Criminal Procedure Code — s. 154(1), 154(3), 156(3)
Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 384, 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506
Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138

Subjects

quash FIR
Section 156(3) CrPC
vicarious liability
civil dispute
mala fide prosecution
jurisdiction
Indian Penal Code
Bajaj Auto
dealership dispute

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84225 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-563 Year-2014 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West
Champaran
======================================================
1. PRASAD VAZE @ PRASAD MADHAV VAZE Son of Madhav Yashwant
Vaze Resident of B601, 602 Sanjog Apartments Lti Road, Near Shirine
Garden Society Aundh, Pune City, Ganeshkhind District- Pune, P.S.- Aundg,
Maharashtra- 411007.
2. Sagar J. Talewar @ Sagar Jaikumar Talewar Son of Jaikumar Govindrao
Talewar Resident of House No. B- 604, Sus- Pashan Road, Behind Bank of
Maharashtra, P.S.- Chaturshrungi (Pashan), Village- Sutarwadi, Pashan,
Pune, Armament, Pashan, District- Pune, Maharasthra- 411021.
3. Jagannath Yadav Son of Shankar Yadav Resident of Flat No. 101, Nandan
Villa, C/73, A.G. Colony Park, Patna, Phulwari, P.S.- Shashtri Nagar,
District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar
2. Suman Singh Son of Late Prem Chander Singh Resident of Village and P.O.-
Berriya, P.S.- Ramgadhwa, District- East Champaran, Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Shama Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER

7 27-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned APP for the State.

2. Despite valid service of notice no one appears

on behalf of the O.P. No.2.

3. This is an application filed for quashing of Bettia

(Town) P.S. Case No.563 of 2014, dated 30.09.2014, registered

pursuant to the order dated 20.06.2014, passed by learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in Complaint
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
2/22

Case No.1130(C)/2014 for the offences punishable under

Sections 384, 406, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and for quashing of the order dated 20.06.2014

passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran

under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC in Complaint Case No.1130(C)

of 2014 and for any other relief to which the petitioners are

found entitled to in the facts of the case.

4. The present case outlines a complaint filed by one

Suman Singh, former Bajaj Company Dealer in Bettiah bearing

Case No.1130(C)/14 against the Chairman, Managing Director,

General Manager, and other senior officials of the Company.

Suman Singh, who was a dealer in the said company from

19.12.2012 to 31.09.2015, allegedly filed the complaint with

malicious intent. The same was filed without following proper

legal procedures, such as approaching the police or providing an

affidavit as required by law. The complaint alleges that Suman

Singh was unemployed and seeking business opportunities,

when he found an advertisement in Dainik Jagaran Newspaper

on 26.11.2010, for a Bajaj Dealership in Bettiah. He contacted

the provided contact number and met Rahul Bajaj and Rajiv

Bajaj.

5. The petitioners assured the complainant that they
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
3/22

would be the sole dealer in Bettiah as they have space for

constructing a workshop. They also allegedly promised a

lifelong association with their dealership and financial support

through Bajaj Auto Finance Limited (B.F.L). The complainant

claims that he was not told that minimal investment was needed

and in this manner on the assurance of the petitioners, the

complainant submitted his application.

6. The accused persons conducted survey and

interview in Bettiah and after selection, the company gave him

letter of intent dated 12.01.2011. Thereafter, on demand,

complainant gave a bank guarantee of Rs.50 lakh in favour of

the accused persons. The complainant also spent Rs. 5 Crores

for construction of building and other works under the influence

of the accused persons.

7. It is alleged by the complainant that he was given

appointment for a period of three months only i.e. from

19.12.2012 to 31.03.2013 and when he enquired about the same

then appointment from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2015 was issued in

his favour with assurance that it was just a formality and his

dealership will keep on extending from time to time. The

complainant also gave bank guarantee of Rs.46.50 Lakh for the

period of 22.08.2013 to 20.08.2014 but inspite of this the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
4/22

accused persons stopped the delivery of two wheelers and again

the petitioners, namely, Sagar J. Talewar and Jagganath Yadav

pressurized him for bank guarantee of Rs.50 Lakhs for delivery

of the vehicles.

8. Even after giving bank guarantee of Rs.1.10 Crores,

the complainant was harassed by the accused persons on the

pretext of credit limit. Without any prior information the billing

was stopped in August 2013. The facility of Bajaj Auto Finance

Limited was also not provided to the complainant. In this

manner the accused persons have committed fraud with the

complainant.

9. It is alleged that on 06.05.2014 Sagar J. Talewar

(Petitioner no. 2) and Jagganath Yadav (Petitioner no. 3) visited

his Bettiah establishment and demanded Rs.1 Crore and

threatened otherwise to end the dealership of the complainant.

The accused persons demanded two blank signed cheques if he

wanted to save his dealership upon which 300 vehicles were

about to be sent to him for sale.

10. The complainant signed two blank cheques under

the threat of losing his dealership but despite of that vehicles

were not being sent to him. Upon enquiry about the same, the

accused persons denied about any such incident or blank
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
5/22

cheques.

11. The complaint of the complainant was forwarded

by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah to Thana Incharge,

Bettiah vide order dated 28.06.2014 under Section 156(3) of

Cr.PC for registration of FIR under Section 384, 406, 420, 467,

468, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was

registered as Bettiah Nagar P.S. Case No.563 of 2014.

12. Mrs. Shama Sinha, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that Bajaj Auto Ltd. is a company registered

under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its

registered Office at Akurdi, Pune, Maharashtra. The company is

into automobile manufacturing and its turnover is of about

Rs.35,000/- Crores. Petitioners are Senior Officals of the Bajaj

Company and they have no role in day to day activities of the

company.

13. The complainant is an ex-dealer of Bajaj Auto

Limited. His firm was appointed as a dealer of the Company on

19.12.2012 for the period of three months which was renewed

subsequently through his partnership firm, namely, Prem

Automobiles after following the process of advertisement,

scrutiny of his application, survey and interview as per the

company policy. The complainant’s firm was allotted dealership
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
6/22

no.11516. The dealership of the complainant was extended from

time to time by fresh agreement, last time it was extended by

fresh agreement on 17.03.2025 till 30.09.2015. The said

dealership was governed by the terms and conditions mentioned

in the letter of appointment and dealership agreement. Clause

‘V’ with respect to jurisdiction in no unambiguous terms states

that all dispute shall be subject to jurisdiction of the Court of

City of Pune. The same is quoted herein below:-

“Since the allotment of vehicles to you is
made from Pune, this letter of appointment as
Dealer will be effective only after receipt of your
confirmation by us at Pune, any dispute arising out
of or incidental to this appointment letter and
terms and conditions mentioned herein, shall be
subject to jurisdiction of the Court of City of Pune,
Maharashtra only.”

14. The Company or its officials had never gave

any assurance to the applicant for taking/offering dealership as

alleged by the complainant. All the terms and conditions of

dealership are stipulated in the agreement, which is duly signed

by both the parties. It is only the network team, marketing team

& President Motorcycle of the Company who appoint, manage

and take call for termination of dealership across India and that

the Chairman & MD are not even connected to any dealership
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
7/22

issues, affairs, appointment and termination activity.

15. There was no such agreement between the

complainant and the petitioners which assures that the O.P. No.2

would be the sole dealer of the Bajaj Auto Ltd. at Bettiah Town

for life. The O.P. No.2’s firm was not able to handle the

responsibilities of a dealer in terms of the agreement. His firm

violated the terms of agreement and for which the Company had

sent mails to his partnership firm from time to time. The O.P.

No.2 had apprehension that his dealership will be terminated as

he had violated the terms of agreement and committed several

breaches of the terms of agreement. Due to this apprehension he

filed this false case against the petitioners and other officials of

the Company. Even after the complaint was filed, the O.P. No.2

signed minutes of Meeting on July 7, 2014, at Bajaj Auto Pune

Office, acknowledging the dues to be paid to the Company

related to non-performance. The O.P. No.2 is accused of making

improbable and absurd allegations against the Company’s

officials while simultaneously seeking their cooperation to

revive his dealership.

16. The Company and its officials had no knowledge

of the complaint against them. The Senior Officals does not

handle dealership issues directly, but rather a specific team
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
8/22

following established protocols does. Despite the false

litigation, the Company assisted the O.P. No.2’s firm in reviving

its dealership, following company policy for which the O.P.

No.2 expressed gratitude towards the company in an e-mail

dated 04.09.2014 i.e. after filing the complaint on 20.06.2014.

The said e-mail emphasized that the O.P. No.2 did not have any

complaints against the company or its officials but instead

showed appreciation and requested further support.

17. The allegation of the O.P. No.2 that money favour

was demanded by Bajaj marketing/sales officer is false and the

same is unsupported by evidence. He has not provided any

proof to support his allegation. It is pertinent to mention that

neither stamp paper nor blank cheques were taken from the O.P.

No.2 nor they were used against him. If the company possessed

the alleged cheques, he would have pursued a case under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for quicker

recovery of the outstanding amount instead of filing a civil suit

in Pune.

18. It is further submitted that despite full cooperation

from the company, the O.P. No.2 failed to manage the business

effectively or clear outstanding dues. Furthermore, the

complainant allegedly did not provide C forms for Q4 FY 2014-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
9/22

15, causing financial loss to the company. The dealership was

terminated due to the natural expiry of the term and

unsatisfactory performance, which led to business loss and

market share decline. Subsequently, the company lawfully

invoked the bank guarantee and filed a Special Civil Suit

No.1090 of 2015 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune

for recovery of balance outstanding dues and other reliefs. A

recovery proceeding is pending against the respondent. The

Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune vide order dated 31.08.2015

was pleased to grant ex-parte temporary injunction to the

Company and issued summons to the O.P. No.2 but he chose not

to appear before him. Thereafter, the learned Court proceeded

ex-parte in Civil Suit No.1090 of 2015.

19. It is further argued that the Company gained

knowledge about the present case in the late 2018. A police

official from Bettiah Town Police Station contacted the

company’s regional office in Patna regarding the ongoing case.

The same prompted the Patna Office to inform the company’s

legal department in Pune, which then verified the case details

and notified the petitioners. Petitioners were shocked to learn

that a disgruntled ex-dealer had filed an FIR against him.

20. The present FIR was registered by the order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
10/22

passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC by the Magistrate. The

Magistrate did not appropriately consider the facts before

ordering the FIR, acting mechanically and failing to apply

judicial mind. The complainant did not follow proper procedure

under Section 154(3) of Cr.PC, and the complaint lacked an

affidavit as required by the Supreme Court in the case of

Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. It states that the Magistrate

passed the order on 20.06.2014 which was against the law

established by the Supreme Court.

21. It is next submitted that the allegations made by

the O.P. No.2 arises out of an agreement between the Company

and O.P. No.2’s firm. The allegations are primarily against the

company as a legal entity and are vague. The company itself has

not been named as an accused party, suggesting the allegations

are restricted to the Chairman, Managing Director, and other

senior officials. The Chairman, Managing Director and senior

officials have no role in the day-to-day operations of the

dealerships, including appointments and terminations, nor are

they involved in the company’s daily functioning. The F.I.R.

was filed with malicious intent by the O.P. No.2 to harass,

blackmail and defame the petitioners and to prevent the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
11/22

company from taking any legal action. The O.P. No.2, a former

dealer, abused the legal process by concealing the facts while he

was still dealer of the company and that the case was filed with

ulterior motives to blackmail the company.

22. The allegations made by the O.P. No.2 are

commercial/civil in nature, stemming from an agreement/

contract, and do not constitute a criminal offense. Issues like

bank guarantees for vehicle delivery and account settlement

with Bajaj Finance Limited (BFL) are cited as examples of

commercial/civil matters. The B.F.L. is a separate legal entity

that provides financing based on the dealer’s credit rating and

selection process. So far as the offence of criminal breach of

trust is concerned, Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code defines

criminal breach of trust envisages entrustment of property to the

accused, which is missing in the present case.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of

the argument made on behalf of the petitioners, has relied upon

several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases

of Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

and Ors. (Supra), Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial

Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v.

State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 690., State of Haryana Vs. Ch.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
12/22

Bhajan Lal & Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604., R Kalyani

v. Janak C. Mehta and others reported as (2009) 1 SCC 516.

24. Learned counsel for the State has supported the

prosecution case and has submitted that the cognizance order

should not be quashed at this stage as prima facie case is made

out against the petitioners.

25. From the records, it appears that there is not

direct allegation against the petitioners and it is an admitted fact

that the informant entered into an agreement with M/s Bajaj

Auto Limited, Pune in the year 2011 for dealership of the same

and subsequently the company has granted him dealership.

When the business of the informant was not going on properly

then the parties communicated with each other and the

informant, being apprehended of the fact that the agreement will

be terminated this complaint case has been registered at Bettiah

which was referred for registration of FIR under Section 156(3)

of the Cr.P.C. and pursuant to the same, Bettiah City P.S. Case

No. 563 of 2014 has been registered.

26. The following contentions are made on behalf of

the petitioners:-

(i). The procedure for registration of FIR under
Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. has not been complied with
under Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. the registration of FIR
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
13/22

is in teeth of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. Vs
State of UP (Supra).
(ii). No offence is made out against the
petitioners and the company has not been made a party in
this case which is in the teeth of the Judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of R Kalyani v. Janak C.
Mehta and others (Supra).
(iii). From the reading of the FIR, no offence
as alleged under Section 384, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506/34
of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the
petitioners.
(iv). From the allegation levelled in the FIR, it
is clear that a case of purely civil/commercial dispute
which is already pending between the parties at Pune has
been given a colour of criminal case and the same is in
the teeth of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Indian Oil Corporation Versus NEPC India
Ltd reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736.
(v). The order taking cognizance is without any
application of mind and is in the teeth of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi
Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (Supra) and in
the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P.
(Supra).
(vi). The prosecution of the petitioners is a
mala fide prosecution and the same has been launched
with a view to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners
because of the pending civil/commercial dispute between
the parties and the same is in the teeth of the judgment of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
14/22

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others (Supra).

27. I have heard and considered the submission of

the parties.

28. The contention of the petitioners that the

procedure for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of the

Cr.P.C. has not been complied with under Section 154(1) of the

Cr.P.C., the same is in the teeth of the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and

Anr. Vs State of UP (Supra) and the relevant paragraph of the

same reads as under:-

30. In our considered opinion, a stage
has come in this country where Section 156(3)
CrPC applications are to be supported by an
affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the
invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned
Magistrate would be well advised to verify the
truth and also can verify the veracity of the
allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant
more responsible. We are compelled to say so as
such kind of applications are being filed in a
routine manner without taking any responsibility
whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That
apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming
when one tries to pick up people who are passing
orders under a statutory provision which can be
challenged under the framework of the said Act or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But
it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
15/22

criminal court as if somebody is determined to
settle the scores.

31. We have already indicated that
there has to be prior applications under Sections
154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under
Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly
spelt out in the application and necessary
documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant
for giving a direction that an application under
Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so
that the person making the application should be
conscious and also endeavour to see that no false
affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is
found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution
in accordance with law. This will deter him to
casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate
under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already
stated that the veracity of the same can also be
verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being
had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are
compelled to say so as a number of cases
pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial
dispute/family disputes, commercial offences,
medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the
cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in
Lalita Kumari [(2014) 2 SCC 1: (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned
Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in
lodging of the FIR"

29. The contention of the petitioners that no

offence is made out against the petitioners as they are the Senior

Officials of the Bajaj Company and the company has not been

made a party, the same is in teeth of the law laid down by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
16/22

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R Kalyani v. Janak C.

Mehta and others (Supra) in which it has been held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court that a person has to be proceeded with

as being vicariously liable for the act of the company, the

company must be made an accused in the case and the relevant

paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below:-

41. If a person, thus, has to be proceeded
with as being variously liable for the acts of the
company, the company must be made an accused. In
any event, it would be a fair thing to do so, as legal
fiction is raised both against the Company as well as
the person responsible for the acts of the Company.

30. The contention of the petitioners that from the

reading of the FIR, no offence as alleged under Section 384,

420, 467, 468, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out

against the petitioners, I am of the view that to constitute an

offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, there are

three main ingredients i.e.

(i) To deceive any person having intention to
cheat from the very beginning.
(ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the
person so deceived to deliver any property to any
person.
(iii) To consent that any person shall retain
any property.

31. The allegations made by the O.P. No.2 do not

fulfill the conditions to make out the offence of cheating. There
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
17/22

is no whisper in the allegations with regard to the offence of

extortion under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The

important elements of extortion are:-

(i) The accused must instill fear of injury in
the person or any other individual.
(ii) The act of instilling fear must be
intentional.
(iii) The accused must induce the person in
fear to relinquish property or valuable security.
(iv) Such inducement must be done
dishonestly.

32. The entire complaint would further disclose

that there is no whisper in the complaint with regard to the

offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The main

ingredients of offence under Section 504 IPC are:

(i) Intentional insult.
(ii) The insult must be such as to give
provocation to the person insulted.
(iii) Intention that such provocation should
cause, or knowledge that such provocation was likely
to cause, the person so insulted to break the public
peace or commit any other offence.

33. It is further stated that the necessary conditions

for forgery under Sections 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code are

not met because there is no claim that the petitioners created or

used a false document. Further, the O.P. No.2 has not

demonstrated any criminal intent arising from the contractual

agreement between the parties, which existed from December
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
18/22

19, 2012 to September 30, 2015. The O.P. No.2 is allegedly

misusing the judicial process to gain an advantage and acting

with ulterior motives. They are also accused of avoiding

appearance in Pune Court regarding Special Civil Suit No.1090

of 2015 for the recovery of outstanding dues to the petitioners’

company.

34. It is also stated that the allegations in the FIR,

even if accepted as true, do not constitute an offence warranting

their prosecution. There is no reason for them to threaten the

O.P. No.2 because their business dealings are governed by an

agreement with the company. The petitioners describes the

allegations as absurd and improbable, arguing that no reasonable

person would find sufficient grounds to proceed against them.

35. The contention of the petitioners that from the

allegation levelled in the FIR, it is clear that a case of purely

civil/commercial dispute which is already pending between the

parties at Pune has been given a colour of criminal case and the

same is in the teeth of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Versus NEPC India Ltd

reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 and the relevant paragraph of the

same is quoted below:-

"It is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in
business Circles to convert purely Civil disputes into
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
19/22

Criminal Cases. This is obviously on account of a
prevalent impression that Civil law remedies are time
consuming and do not adequately protects the interests
of lenders/creditors Such a tendency is seen in several
family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break
down of marriages/families There is also an impression
that if a person could somehow be entangled in a
criminal prosecution, there is likelihood of imminent
settlement. Any efforts to settle Civil disputes and
Claim, which do not involve any Criminal offence, by
applying pressure through Criminal prosecution should
be deprecated and discouraged."

36. The contention of the petitioners that the order

taking cognizance is without any application of mind and is in

the teeth of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate

(Supra) and in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State

of U.P.(Supra) and the relevant paragraph of Pepsi Foods

Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (Supra) has held as

follows:-

“Summoning of an accused in a criminal
case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set
into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the
complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support
his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal
law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that he has
applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law
applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the evidence
both oral and documentary in support thereof and
would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed
in bringing charge on to the accused. It is not that the
Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
20/22

of preliminary evidence before summoning of the
accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the
evidence brought on record and may even himself put
questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit
answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations
or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima
facie committed by all or any of the accused.”

37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Supra) has held

as under:

“30. The aforesaid aspect could be said to
have been completely lost sight of by the High Court,
while rejecting the application filed by the appellant
herein under Section 482CrPC, seeking quashing of
the summoning order.
31. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir
Mohammad Tunda [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir
Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC
(Cri) 124] , this Court held thus : (SCC p. 430, para
22)
“22. … The satisfaction on the ground for
proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the
complaint would constitute an offence, and when
considered along with the statements recorded, would,
prima facie, make the accused answerable before the
court. … In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as
a post office in taking cognizance of each and every
complaint filed before him and issue process as a
matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in
the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied
that the allegations in the complaint constitute an
offence and when considered along with the statements
recorded and the result of inquiry or report of
investigation under Section 202 CrPC, if any, the
accused is answerable before the criminal court, there
is ground for proceeding against the accused under
Section 204 CrPC, by issuing process for appearance.
Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
21/22

of mind on the satisfaction. … To be called to appear
before the criminal court as an accused is serious
matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in
society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not
be made a weapon of harassment.”
(emphasis supplied)
32. The principle of law discernible from the
aforesaid decision is that issuance of summons is a
serious matter and, therefore, should not be done
mechanically and it should be done only upon
satisfaction on the ground for proceeding further in the
matter against a person concerned based on the
materials collected during the inquiry.

38. The contention of the petitioners that the

present prosecution is a mala fide prosecution and the same has

been launched with a view to wreak vengeance upon the

petitioners because of the pending civil/commercial dispute

between the parties, the same is in the teeth of the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.

Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others (Supra) and the relevant paragraph

has been quoted below:-

(7) "where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with malafides and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge"

39. In view of the above discussions and in view of

the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view

that the present mala fide prosecution has been initiated by the

informant once when he apprehended cancellation of his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84225 of 2019(7) dt.27-01-2026
22/22

dealership. There is no allegation levelled against the petitioners

who are Senior Officials of the Bajaj Company and the

informant cannot be allowed to initiate criminal proceedings

which is to pressurize the company for extorting money and

resumption of their agency. From the reading of the FIR and

other materials on record, no offence under Sections 384, 406,

420, 467, 468, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Court are made

out against the petitioners.

40. Accordingly, the present application is allowed

and the FIR bearing Bettiah Town/Bettiah City P.S. Case No.

563 of 2014 is hereby quashed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.