SHRICHAND RAJARAM KUKREJA AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

                 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 696 : 2025 INSC 794

                Shrichand Rajaram Kukreja and Anr.
                                 v.
                 The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 2591 of 2025)
                                 14 May 2025
               [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the allegations levelled in the impugned-FIR disclose a
       dispute of civil in nature; whether the proceedings of the impugned-
       FIR and the chargesheet filed as a culmination of the investigation
       is a gross abuse of process of the Court.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 – The
       complainant alleged that he had worked on the project of STP
       plant and drainage pipe line as a sub-contractor for BUL but
       only a partial payment against the total work carried out was
       received by him – In this manner, the complainant claimed to
       have been cheated – It was alleged that accused submitted
       false documents claiming to have performed the work whereas
       it was the complainant who had carried out the said work
       under the sub-contract – It was also alleged that signatures
       of engineers employed by complainant were forged – FIR was
       registered – The appellants herein filed a quashing petition
       u/s.482 of CrPC – The quashing petition and the criminal writ
       petition came to be rejected by the High Court – Correctness:
       Held: The complainant came out with an admitted case in his
       complaint that he had received a part payment to the tune of
       Rs. 3,68,15,612/- from the appellants, towards the work which was
       carried out in furtherance of the sub-contracts awarded initially
       through the sub-contractor, namely SWD Infra, and thereafter
       directly to the complainant’s company – Apparently thus, the
       admitted facts as available on record reveal that the complainant’s
       claim is for reimbursement of the remaining amount claimed by
       him towards the works executed in furtherance of a contract – The
       allegations, made in the complaint, present a dispute which is purely
       commercial and civil in nature – It seems that the complainant has

* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                           697

                    Shrichand Rajaram Kukreja and Anr. v.
                      The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

     contrived to somehow or the other, involve the police machinery
     to act as recovery agents on his behalf – The complaint, on the
     face of record, did not disclose any offence whatsoever and no
     FIR should have been registered based thereupon – Ex facie, the
     allegations of forging the signatures of the Engineers, employed
     by the complainant, are not substantiated from the investigation
     conducted in the case – This Court is of the view that allowing
     the proceedings of the impugned-FIR and the chargesheet filed
     as a culmination of the investigation, would be nothing short of a
     gross abuse of process of the Court – Thus, the impugned order
     dated 08.10.2018, passed by the High Court is hereby quashed
     and set aside. [Paras 18, 20, 21]

                              Case Law Cited
     Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal [2007] 10 SCR
     847 : (2007) 12 SCC 1 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Securitisation
     and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
     Interest Act, 2002.

                              List of Keywords
     Quashing of FIR; Cheating; Forgery; Civil dispute; False documents;
     Abuse of process of the Court; Part-payment; Forging of signatures.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     2591 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2018 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRLA No. 6539 of 2015
     With
     Criminal Appeal No. 2592 of 2025

                          Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     K Parameshwar, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Bharti, Ms. Aarti Mahto, Balaji
     Srinivasan, Shreenivas Patil.
698                                                           [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                                     Supreme Court Reports


       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla,
       Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Shakul R. Ghatole,
       Sambhaji Gawande, Vatsalya Vigya, Shradha, Seshatalpa Sai
       Bandaru.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                 Judgment

       Mehta, J.

1.     Heard.
2.     Leave granted.
3.     The appellants in the above captioned appeals are arraigned as
       accused in the FIR No. 443 of 20151 registered with MIDC Walunj
       Police Station, Aurangabad for offences punishable under Sections
       406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2
4.     Since both the appeals arise out of a common order dated 8th October,
       2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay
       Appellate Side, at Aurangabad3 dismissing Criminal Application No.
       6539 of 2015, filed by the appellants, and Criminal Writ Petition No.
       1438 of 2016, filed by Jaywant Mallya (accused No. 6 in impugned-
       FIR), both have been heard analogously and are being decided
       together by this common order.
5.     The complainant (respondent No. 2 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP
       (Crl.) No. 9857 of 2018) has filed a counter affidavit. Respondent
       No. 1-State of Maharashtra has not filed any counter affidavit despite
       repeated opportunities. However, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande,
       learned standing counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra,
       has filed a copy of a report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal
       Procedure, 19734 in compliance of an order dated 23rd April, 2025
       passed by this Court.


1    Hereinafter, referred to as “impugned-FIR”.
2    Hereinafter, referred to as “IPC”.
3    Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
4    Hereinafter, referred to as “CrPC”.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                           699

                          Shrichand Rajaram Kukreja and Anr. v.
                            The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

6.     Facts in a nutshell, relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals,
       are noted hereinbelow: -
       6.1 Ashok Karbhari Shingare Patil5 lodged the impugned-FIR at
           the MIDC Walunj Police Station, Aurangabad alleging, inter
           alia, that he was a professional Contractor involved in variety
           of construction works.
       6.2 MIDC, Walunj, Aurangabad issued a tender in the year 2009-
           2010, for construction of a sewerage water filter plant under
           built, operate and transfer basis (B.O.T.) at Plot No. 02, O.S.
           7(P), Maharashtra State Industrial Corporation6 with the pre-
           condition that the selected building company would be required
           to spend equally for this project. Upon completion of the work by
           the company under the contract, a sum of Rs. 27,00,000/- was
           to be passed on per month on B.O.T. basis to the company.
       6.3 The tender submitted by Bharat Udyog Limited7 (the successful
           bidder), a company registered with the MIDC, was accepted
           and the project work was awarded to it for the next 20 years
           commencing from 25th November, 2021. The possession of
           the property was transferred to BUL. For undertaking the
           construction works, BUL assigned a sub-contract to S.W.D.
           Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Belapur, C.B.D., Navi Mumbai8 in
           January, 2012. BUL gave certain orders to SWD Infra on 1st
           March, 2012 against which a sum of Rs.1,35,62,872/- remained
           outstanding. SWD Infra further assigned a sub-contract to the
           complainant’s company by name of Sai Group and an agreement
           was entered into in this regard. The complainant claimed that
           the payment for the work under the sub-contract of SWD Infra
           was agreed to be made to the complainant directly, under the
           instructions given by the Directors of BUL (appellants herein)
           to SWD Infra.
       6.4 As per the complainant, for the work done between 10th October,
           2013 to 5th May, 2014, a sum of Rs.5,13,78,485.50/- remained
           outstanding to be paid to his company (Sai Group) and that


5    Hereinafter, referred to as “complainant”.
6    For short, “MIDC”.
7    Hereinafter, referred to as ‘BUL’.
8    Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘SWD Infra’.
700                                                         [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            he had received only an amount of Rs.3,68,15,612/-. A sum
            of Rs.2,52,12,801/- was due to be paid to the complainant by
            BUL. As the payment was not forthcoming, the complainant
            expressed his inability to carry on further work under the sub-
            contract. Upon this, the Chairman and Director of the BUL,
            namely Shrichand Rajaram Kukreja and Suryakant (appellant
            Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) persuaded him to continue with the
            project work. The complainant was given an allurement that he
            was a prime Contractor and hence, the bills pending with SWD
            Infra should be submitted to them (appellants herein) and in
            turn, the appellants would directly transfer the payment from
            their bank account to the complainant’s company. On receiving
            this assurance, the complainant resumed the work spending
            an amount of Rs.16,74,525/- for the same. He submitted the
            bills towards work done via email to the Project Manager of
            BUL (accused No. 3 in impugned-FIR) on 12th December, 2014.
       6.5 Another bill for a sum of Rs.2,12,59,000/- was raised by the
           complainant towards the work carried out under the sub-contract
           but the persons in-charge of BUL kept on giving false assurances
           and did not make the requisite payments. Consequently, the
           complainant was compelled to sell his assets in order to make
           payment towards the material and labour costs.
       6.6 The complainant further claimed that two Engineers, namely,
           Ganesh Rathod and Chetan Dabhade were working with
           his concern (Sai Group) but the Project Manager Rajendra
           Yadav (accused No. 3 in impugned-FIR) and Jaywant Mallya
           (accused No. 6 in impugned-FIR), who were associated with
           BUL, submitted false documents to MIDC showing those two
           engineers to be employed by BUL. These documents bore false/
           fabricated signatures of Ganesh Rathod and Chetan Dabhade
           and were submitted at the MIDC office on 12th February, 2015.
           BUL submitted a false stock statement to the Bank Auditor,
           Oriental Bank of Commerce in March 2015, falsely posing that
           the stocks, etc. of the complainant were owned by them.
       6.7 The complainant concluded his complaint by alleging that he had
           worked on the project of STP plant and drainage pipe line at Bajaj
           Nagar, MIDC as a sub-contractor for BUL but partial payment
           of Rs.3,68,00,000/- only against the total work successfully
           carried out by the complainant was made to him and valid bills
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                           701

                        Shrichand Rajaram Kukreja and Anr. v.
                          The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

              to the tune of Rs.3,95,00,000/- and Rs.1,16,00,000/- remained
              outstanding. BUL had entered into a direct sub-contract with the
              complainant on 22nd November, 2014 and on the assurance of
              the former, the complainant undertook the work on their behalf.
              The accused persons (including the appellants herein) collected
              the amounts against the work executed by the complainant from
              MIDC, but they refused to pass on the payment to him despite
              his entitlement. They submitted false documents claiming to
              have performed the work whereas it was the complainant who
              had carried out the said work under the sub-contract. In this
              manner, the complainant claimed to have been cheated of a
              total amount of Rs.5,11,69,398/- at the hands of the accused
              persons. Based on this complaint, the impugned-FIR No. 443
              of 2015 came to be registered on 14th October, 2015 and the
              investigation was commenced.
7.    Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed a quashing petition9
      under Section 482 of CrPC. On the other hand, Jaywant Mallya
      (respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 10444 of 2018)
      who was arraigned as accused No. 6 in impugned-FIR, preferred a
      criminal writ petition10 seeking a direction for fair investigation by an
      independent agency. As is noted above, the quashing petition and
      the criminal writ petition came to be rejected by learned High Court
      vide a common order dated 8th October, 2018, which is assailed in
      present appeals by special leave.

      Submissions on behalf of the appellants:
8.    Shri K. Parameshwar, learned senior counsel representing the
      appellants, urged that the entire case as set out in the impugned-
      FIR does not disclose the necessary ingredients of any offence
      whatsoever. A dispute which is purely civil in nature has been given
      the colour of a crime by misusing criminal law and the appellants
      herein are being harassed and persecuted in this matter. He urged
      that the bills raised by the appellants under the contract in question
      were not honoured by the MIDC upon which the appellants resorted
      to arbitration proceedings and the awards have been passed in their
      favour.


9    Criminal Application No. 6539 of 2015.
10   Criminal Writ Petition No. 1438 of 2016.
702                                                        [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       8.1 He further urged that the accounts of the appellant’s Company
           (BUL) with the Oriental Bank of Commerce have been settled
           and there is no outstanding due to the bank. Even if the
           allegations of the complainant are to be accepted as true on
           their face value, it is manifest that part payment has been made
           to him for execution of the project work as a sub-contractor
           of the appellants. Apparently, by filing the impugned-FIR, the
           complainant has tried to invoke criminal law to seek recovery
           of dues towards a commercial contract.
       8.2 Shri Parmeshwar submitted that during pendency of the instant
           appeals, the police concluded investigation and chargesheet
           has been filed against the appellants herein for the offences
           punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of
           IPC. Shri Parmeshwar urged that the conclusions drawn in the
           chargesheet are absolutely vague and unsubstantiated and the
           Investigating Officer has just toed the line of the complainant
           without making any effort to seek proper legal opinion on the
           aspect of whether the dispute is of civil nature or not.
       On these grounds, he urged that ex-facie, the invocation of criminal
       machinery for a dispute purely of civil nature is nothing short of a
       gross abuse of the process of law and hence, the impugned-FIR
       and all the proceedings sought to be taken there under including
       the chargesheet deserve to be quashed.

       Submissions on behalf of the respondent:
9.     Per-contra, learned counsel for the complainant (respondent No. 2
       in Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9857 of 2018), urged that after
       the initial period wherein the complainant’s work under the sub-
       contract with SWD Infra came to an end, the appellants induced the
       complainant to continue with the project work by assigning a direct
       sub-contract to the complainant’s company. As per the terms of the
       sub-contract, the appellants were to receive payments from the MIDC
       and thereafter they were obligated to honour the bills submitted by
       the complainant towards execution of the project work. However, the
       appellants acted fraudulently and dishonestly thereby inducing the
       complainant to spend huge sums of money towards the completion
       of the project in question. The appellants, thereafter, got encashed
       the bills of payment directly from the MIDC. Not only this, but the
       appellants also intentionally misrepresented to the authorities that
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                      703

                        Shrichand Rajaram Kukreja and Anr. v.
                          The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

      two Engineers employed by the company of the complainant were
      their employees and thus, fabricated the record.
      On these grounds, he thus, implored the Court to affirm the orders
      passed by the High Court and dismiss the appeals.

      Analysis and Conclusion:
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
    advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned order and
    the material placed on record.
11. The appellants were awarded the work in question in pursuance
    of their successful bid following the tender floated by the MIDC for
    construction of a sewerage water filter plant. Going by the material
    available on record, it seems that the appellants may have taken
    some loans, etc. from the banks, for executing the works under the
    contract awarded by the MIDC. However, neither the MIDC nor any
    of the bank/s have raised any grievance against the appellants’
    company in connection with the contract work. The appellants have
    affirmatively stated in this Court that there is no pending proceeding
    of criminal nature by any of the banks or MIDC against them in
    relation to the subject tender.
12. The High Court, while rejecting the appeal, held that the appellants
    had failed to carry out various works under other contracts awarded
    by the MIDC and that they were in default in these works as well.
13. The High Court, in its order, also referred to an action taken against
    BUL by the Kotak Mahindra Bank under the Securitisation and
    Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
    Interest Act, 2002.11 The High Court also took note of the status
    report filed by the Investigating Officer with the conclusion that the
    transaction was in the nature of a civil dispute. However, the High
    Court went on to conclude that the company of the appellants had
    employed peculiar modus operandi whereby they obtained work
    orders from various Government institutions and authorities and took
    advance amounts in the name of investment for the institution and
    by using the record of the project, they raised huge loans from the
    banks and financial institutions. They appointed sub-contractors, but


11   Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’.
704                                                       [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       did not pass on the money received by them towards the project to
       the sub-contractors and most of the work was not completed and
       the contracts were terminated.
14. Placing reliance on these hypothetical presumptions and assumptions,
    the High Court concluded that as the loan was raised only on specific
    projects, the sufferers may be both i.e., the Government institutions
    and the sub-contractors. It was held that there was a clear possibility
    that without informing or without taking permission from the local
    authority or Government Institutions, the properties of the local body
    may have been mortgaged for raising loan. The High Court further
    noted that only a few of the questioned transactions were highlighted
    by Jaswant Mallya (respondent No. 1 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP
    (Crl.) No. 10444 of 2018) and that there was a possibility of many
    more such fraudulent transactions.
15. It was further observed that the quotient of MIDC to the tune of
    Rs.3,00,00,000/- was collected by the appellants and a loan of more
    than Rs.11,00,00,000/- was raised on the project but the amount
    was not passed on to the Sub-Contractor. The High Court further
    noted that the appellants did not make any investment in the project
    and money was usurped by the afore-stated modus operandi as the
    subject tender did not provide permission to assign sub-contracts. The
    appellants deceived not only the sub-contractor, but also the MIDC,
    being the Government corporation. The High Court, in its conclusion,
    observed that the State Government needs to mull over the matter
    and hand over the investigation to some specialized agency like the
    Economic Wing or CBI to conduct investigation into the contracts in
    which the company of the appellants was involved.
16. The conclusions of the High Court are prima facie based on sheer
    conjectures regarding the appellants having misused the acquired
    work orders for taking loan from various financial institutions as well
    as taking advances from the MIDC. The High Court suspected that
    the accused appellants may have cheated the financial institutions
    as well as the MIDC. However, a perusal of the report under Section
    173(2) of CrPC placed on record, by learned standing counsel
    for the respondent-State, presents an entirely different picture. In
    this report, there is no reference to the accused appellants having
    misused the contracts/tenders awarded to them for procuring undue
    gain from any other financial institutions, viz., banks, etc. or from
    the MIDC itself. The report, under Section 173(2) of CrPC, takes
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                           705

                        Shrichand Rajaram Kukreja and Anr. v.
                          The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

      note of the directions given by the High Court. The investigation of
      the FIR continued for almost ten years but not a shred of evidence
      has been collected by the Investigating Officer to support or fortify
      the conclusion of the High Court regarding financial bungling by the
      appellants other than the disputed transaction with the complainant.
17. Hence, the order passed by the High Court directing extensive
    investigation regarding the perceived financial misadventures of the
    appellants is ex facie erroneous and illegal and hence, the same
    cannot be sustained.
18. Coming to the prosecution of the appellants based on the impugned-
    FIR No. 443 of 2015 lodged by complainant (respondent No. 2 in
    Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 9857 of 2018), we find that the
    allegations levelled therein, even if taken to be true on their face value,
    do not disclose the necessary ingredients of any offence, what to say
    of a cognizable offence/s. The allegations, on the face of it, disclose
    a dispute which is purely civil in nature. The complainant came out
    with an admitted case in his complaint that he had received a part
    payment to the tune of Rs. 3,68,15,612/- from the appellants, towards
    the work which was carried out in furtherance of the sub-contracts
    awarded initially through the sub-contractor, namely SWD Infra, and
    thereafter directly to the complainant’s company. Apparently thus, the
    admitted facts as available on record reveal that the complainant’s
    claim is for reimbursement of the remaining amount claimed by
    him towards the works executed in furtherance of a contract. The
    allegations, made in the complaint, present a dispute which is purely
    commercial and civil in nature. It seems that the complainant has
    contrived to somehow or the other, involve the police machinery to
    act as recovery agents on his behalf. The complaint, on the face of
    record, did not disclose any offence whatsoever and no FIR should
    have been registered based thereupon.
19. This Court has time and again come down heavily on the attempts
    of the over-zealous litigants in trying to settle their civil disputes by
    misusing the police machinery and resorting to criminal proceedings.
    A gainful reference in this regard may be made to a decision of
    three-judge bench of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State
    of Uttaranchal,12 which involved a contractual dispute among the


12   (2007) 12 SCC 1.
706                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       parties wherein a part payment had been made to the complainant
       by the accused. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article
       136 of the Constitution of India, quashed the FIR/criminal proceedings.
20. It may be noted that so far as the allegation regarding forging the
    signatures of two Engineers namely, Ganesh Rathod and Chetan
    Dabhade are concerned, the Investigating Officer has already got
    comparison of the questioned signatures done through the handwriting
    expert and the report, thus, received is inconclusive. Hence, ex facie,
    the allegations of forging the signatures of the Engineers, employed
    by the complainant, are not substantiated from the investigation
    conducted in the case.
21. In wake of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that allowing
    the proceedings of the impugned-FIR and the chargesheet filed as
    a culmination of the investigation, would be nothing short of a gross
    abuse of process of the Court. The impugned order dated 8th October,
    2018, passed by the High Court does not stand to scrutiny and is
    hereby quashed and set aside.
22. Resultantly, the impugned-FIR No. 443 of 2015 and all proceedings
    sought to be taken in furtherance thereof including the chargesheet
    are also quashed.
23. This order will not preclude the Investigating Agency to investigate
    financial irregularities, if any, disclosed during the course of
    investigation of the present FIR.
24. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
25. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan