SUNEET GUPTAversusANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA & ORS.

                           [2008] 6 S.C R 1162

A                         SUNEET GUPTA
                                 v.
                ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA & ORS.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2008)
                             APRIL 28, 2008
B
             (C.K. THAKKER AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.)

         Companies Act, 1956/Code of Criminal Procedure,
    1973; S. 482:
C          Quashing of FIR - Differences amongst partners - One
    partner leaving partnership firm joining another firm - Disputes
    regarding payment from third party, the principal - Fl.R. -
    Initiation of criminal case against outgoing partners and other,
    respondents - Filing of petition uls.482 of the Code for
D   quashing of FI. R. - Dispute - Nature of- Civil/Criminal - Held:
    High Court rightly considered the facts in their proper
    perspective quashing criminal proceedings against
    respondents - Disputes related to settlement of account
    between the principal and Agents/Firms - One of the agents,
E   the first firm, informed the principal about closing of its business
    and continuing the business in the name of another firm, (the
    second firm) and for making the payment to the said firm -
    Though the complainant a/so informed the principal about
    existence of disputes between partners of the first firm and for
    not making payment to the second firm till disputes finally
F   resolved- But that does not give rise to criminal liability entitling
    the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings against
    second firm and others - Particularly, after substitution of the
    second firm in place of the first in the company record of the
    principal - Under the circumstances, High Court has neither
G   committed any error of law nor of jurisdiction which deserves
    interference by Supreme Court in exercise of power u!Artic!e
    136 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
    136 - Scope of - Penal Code, 1860 - S. 406 rlw S 1208 and
    S.468.
H                                    1162
         SUNEET GUPTA v. ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA               1163
                          & ORS.

            Appellant entered into partnership with one 'S' of a      A
      registered Partnership Firm, namely, M/s K.M. Agencies.
      The Firm was the stockist and distributor of consumer
      goods of Mis Johnson & Johnson, a Limited Multinational
      Company, the principal. Later, differences arose between
      the partners when the other partner 'S' joined another          B
      partnership firm, namely, M/s. Mang la Agencies. Appellant
t     alleged that the outgoing partner 'S' falsely, dishonestly
      and with a view to cheat and defraud him, mis-represented
      before Mis Johnson & Johnson Ltd., the principal
      company, that the name of partnership firm of M/s K.M.          c
      Agencies was changed to M/s Mangla Agencies. The
      principal was aware of the fact that M/s K.M. Agencies and
      M/s Mangla Agencies were different firms and M/s K.M.
      Agencies, a partnership firm was never dissolved.
      However, the principal made the payment to Mis Mangla
                                                                      0
      Agencies with a view to deprive Mis K.M. Agencies and
      particularly the appellant. The appellant, in the
      circumstances, was constrained to issue legal notice to
      respondents alleging that the amount in question has
      been misappropriated by partners of M/s Mangla Agencies
      in collusion with officials of the principal by playing fraud   E
      upon him. The appellant also filed a complaint before the
      Director General of Police requesting him to enquire into
      the matter, but nothing further was done in the matter. The
      appellant then lodged the First Information Report against
      all the accused for committing the offences punishable          F
-t·   under Sections 468, 406 read with 1208 IPC at a Police
      Station. Respondents filed bail application. During
      pendency of the bail applications before the High Court,
      the prosecution made a statement that the presence of
      three accused partners of M/s. Mangla Agencies was not          G
      required in the case and consequently their bail
      applications became infructuous. Meanwhile, the
      respondents filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions in the
      High Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashing
      FIR registered against them. The petitions were allowed         H
    1164      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2008] 6 S.C.R.


A by the High Court vide the impugned order. Hence, the
  present appeals.
          Appellant contended that the High Court was wholly
    in error in quashing the FIR; that from the allegations
    levelled in the FIR prima facie case for offences punishable
8   under Sections 468, 406 read with 1208, IPC had been
    made out; that two partnership firms of M/s K.M. Agencies
    and M/s Mangla Agencies were distinct, different and
    independent of each other. So far as M/s K.M. Agencies is
    concerned, there were only two partners, the appellant
C   and one 'S', who became one of the partners of other
    partnership firm as well, i.e. of Mis Mangla Agencies; that
    dues of M/s K.M. Agencies which were to be paid by Mis
    Johnson & Johnson Ltd. could not, in the circumstances,
    be diverted to the other partnership firm with which the
D   appellant-complainant had no connection whatsoever;
    that all the partners of M/s Mangla Agencies and all the
    officials of M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. were aware of
    this fact and yet in collusion with each other and with a
    view to deprive Mis K.M. Agencies in general and the
E   appellant-complainant in particular, payment was made
    to M/s Mangla Agencies. Thus prima facie all the accused
    had committed offences mentioned in the FIR and the
    High Court should not have quashed it; and that the High
    Court was also not right, in holding that it was a civil
F   dispute and there was abuse of process of law on the
    part of the complainant in initiating criminal proceedings.
                                                                   t
        Respondents submitted that the dispute was of a civil
  nature; that it was a dispute between two partnership
  firms and criminal proceedings were initiated only with a
G view to use pressure against the accused so that they
  will be constrained to enter into some settlement with the
  complainant..
           Dismissing the appeals, the Court
H          HELD: 1.1 It cannot be said that the High Court was
       SUNEET GUPTA v. ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA              1165
                        & ORS.

    wrong in quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from       A
    the case put forward by the appellant himself that virtually
    the proceedings were 'civil' in nature. (Para -12) [1171-E]
          1.2 The High Court rightly considered the facts in
    their proper perspective and observed that the dispute
    related to settlement of accounts between principal and B
    its agent; the principal being Mis Johnson & Johnson Ltd.
    and the agent being Mis K.M. Agencies (earlier) and Mis
    Mang la Agencies (later). The High Court also noted that it
    was Mis K.M. Agencies which informed the principal that
    Mis K.M. Agencies had closed its business and the              c
    business was thereafter continued by Mis Mangla
    Agencies and all drafts be issued in favour of Mis Mangla
    Agencies. The High Court took note of the fact that even
    the complainant had informed the principal that there was
    dispute between the partners of Mis K.M. Agencies and D
    hence no payment should be made to Mis Mangla
1   Agencies till the dispute was finally resolved between the
    parties. That, however, does not give rise to criminal
    liability and entitle the complainant to initiate criminal
    proceedings, particularly when the principal substituted E
    in the Company record name of Mis Mangla Agencies in
    place of Mis K.M. Agencies. The resultant effect of such a
    substitution was that whatever sums were due to Mis K.M.
    Agencies were considered to be. due. to Mis Mangla
    Agencies. The High Court, thus, rightly concluded that F
    the steps taken by the complainant were in clear abuse
~
    of process of law. (Paras - 13 & 16) [1172-E-H; 1173-A, H]
        1.3 By passing the impugned order and quashing
    criminal proceedings the High Court has neither
    committed any error of law nor of jurisdiction which G
    deserves interference by this Court in exercise of power
    under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para - 17) [117 4-A]
~
        1.4 In the case on hand, the High Court was right in
    coming to the conclusion that a civil dispute - pure and
                                                                   H
    1166       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 6 S.C.R.


A   simple - between the parties was sought to be converted
    into a criminal offence only by resorting to pressure tactics
    and by taking police help which was indeed abuse of
    process of law and has been rightly prevented by the High
    Court. (Para - 22) [1175-F]
B         State of Punjab vs. Dharam Vir Singh Jethi, 1994 SCC
    (Cri) 500 - distinguished.
                                                                       t

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
    Appeal No. 742 of 2008.
c        From the final Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2006 of
    the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal
    Misc. No. 49200-M of 2003.
                                 WITH
D          Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 2008.
         P.S. Patwalia, S.K. Bansal, Savitri Bansal, Roopak Bansal,
    Dr. Kai lash Chand for the Appellant.
        K.T.S. Tulsi, Siddarth Luthra, Manish Misra, Sanjay R.
E   Hegde, Ajay Pal, Nikhil Jain and Kuldip Singh for the
    Respondents.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted.
F       2. The present appeals are directed against common
  judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and
  Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 49200-
  M of 2003 and 30393-M OF 2004. Both the above petitions
  were filed by the respondents-accused under Section 482 of
G the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
  as 'the Code') for quashing First Information Report (FIR) lodged
  by the appellant herein for offences punishable under Sections
  468, 406 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).              •
           3. Short facts giving rise to the present proceedings are
H
    SUNEET GUPTA v. ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA                1167
           & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.)

that in 1998, appellant Suneet Gupta entered into a registered A
Partnership Firm with one Shashi Kant Mangla in the name and
style of M/s K.M. Agenci_es. The said Firm was the stockist and
distributor of consumer goods of M/s Johnson & Johnson, a
Limited Multinational Company ('M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd.'
for short). According to the appellant, partnership of M/s K.M. B
Agencies had certain claims.over M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd.
on account of freight, octroi paid for goods returned, display of
goods of the company, etc. It is the case of the appellant that
the above claims were duly verified by the officials of M/s
Johnson & Johnson Ltd.                                            c
      4. In or about March, 2001, differences arose between the
two partners of M/s K.M. Agencies, i.e. between the appellant
herein and Shashi Kant Mangla, the other partner. The latter,
therefore, joined another partnership firm of M/s Mangla
Agencies with Ravi Kant Mangla, Atul Gupta and two others. It D
is the allegation of the appellant that Shashi Kant Mangla who
was a partner along with the appellant of M/s K.M. Ag~ncies
falsely, dishonestly and with a view to cheat and defraud the
appellant-complainant, mis-represented before M/s Johnson &
Johnson Ltd. that the name of partnership firm of M/s K.M. E
Agencies was changed to M/s Mangla Agencies. On the basis
of such representation Shashi Kant Mangla informed M/s
Johnson & Johnson Ltd. that payment which was required to be
made by the Company (M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd.) to M/s
K.M. Agencies should now be made to M/s Mangla Agencies. F
According to the appellant, M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. was
aware of the fact that Mis K.M. Agencies and M/s Mangla
Agencies were different; M/s K.M. Agencies, a partnership firm
was never dissolved; Suneet Gupta who was one of the partners
of M/s K.M. Agencies continued to remain partner of the said G
firm and Mr. Shashi Kant Mangla, one of the partners of M/s
K.M. Agencies had joined another partnership firm of M/s
Mangla Agencies and as such payment which was required to
be made by Mis Johnson & Johnson Ltd. to M/s K.M. Agencies
could not be made to M/s Mangla Agencies and yet such
                                                                 H
    1168      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 6 S.C.R.


A   payment was made with a view to deprive Mis K.M. Agencies
    and particularly appellant-Suneet Gupta. The appellant-
    complainant, in the circumstances. was constrained to issue
    legal notice on March 4, 2003 to the respondents herein which
    was received by them on March 10, 2003. In the said notice,
s   the complainant stated that Mis Johnson & Johnson Ltd. was
    required to pay Rs.2.73,189.70 to Mis K.M. Agencies but no
    such payment was made to Mis K.M. Agencies. It also came to
    the notice of the complainant that the amount has been
    misappropriated by partners of Mis Mangla Agencies and
c   officials of Mis Johnson &Johnson Ltd. colluded with the partners
    of Mis Mangla Agencies and all of them had thus played fraud
    upon the complainant. The appellant also filed a complaint before
    the Director General of Police, Chandigarh on May 2, 2003 and
    requested him to direct the police authorities to enquire into the
D   matter. It appears that necessary inquiry was made, the
    respondents submitted their replies, but nothing further was done
    in the matter. The appellant, therefore, was constrained to lodge
    First Information Report (FIR) No. 266 of 2003 on September
    16, 2003, against all the accused for offences punishable under
    Sections 468, 406 read with 1208, IPC at Police Station,
E   Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. Police arrested respondent No. 3
    Devinder Sabharwal, Anil Triloki Nath Sharma and Vivek
    Bhatnagar. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein as also Surrinder
    Mohan, proprietor of Mis Key Ess Associates obtained
    anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court. Other three accused
F   persons, namely, Shashi Kant Mangla, Ravi Kant Mangla and
    Atul Gupta, all partners of Mis Mangla Agencies were denied
    anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
    During the pendency of their bail applications before the High
    Court, however, the prosecution made a statement that the
G   presence of those three accused was not required in the case
    and consequently their bail petitions became infructuous.
     Meanwhile, the respondents herein filed Criminal Miscellaneous      •
     Nos. 4920012003 and 3039312004 in the High Court of Punjab
     & Haryana under Section 482 of the Code for quashing FIR
H    registered against them.
         SUNEET GUPTA v. ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA                     1169
                & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

           5. The appellant also stated that a detailed inquiry was A
      made by the Police. It collected the entire evidence and found
      that prima facie case was made out against the accused
      persons and accordingly charge-sheet was submitted on May
      13, 2004 against accused persons, namely, Devinder
      Sabharwal, Vivek Bhatnagar, Anil Triloki Nath Sharma and B
      Swami Raote. Swami Raote evaded arrest and hence
      proceedings under Section 82 of the Code were initiated against
      him. The prosecution put Shashi Kant Mangla, Ravi Kant Mangla
      and Atul Gupta, partners of M/s Mangla Agencies in Column
      No.2 while Surrinder Mohan was made a prosecution witness. c
      The prosecution then moved an application under Section 190
      read with Sections 239 and 240 of the Code for summoning
      Shashi Kant Mangla, Ravi Kant Mangla and Atul Gupta as
      accused persons for trial.

            6. The High Court vide the impugned order dated August           D
      1, 2006, allowed both the petitions and quashed FIR lodged by
      the appellant. It is this order which is challenged by the appellant
      in the present appeals.
           7. Notice was issued by this Court on April 27, 2007,
      counter-affidavit and affidavit-in-rejoinder were thereafter filed     E
      and the matters were ordered to be posted for final disposal.
      That is how the matters are before us.

           8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

-t·         9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that          F
      the High Court was wholly in error in quashing FIR lodged by
      the appellant. It was submitted that from the allegations levelled
      in the FIR prima facie case for offences punishable under
      Sections 468, 406 read with 1208, IPC had been made out.
      According to the learned counsel, what is seen at this stage is        G
      whether on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint,
      prima facie case has been made out against the accused and
      not whether trial against them would ultimately result in conviction
      of the accused. It was the case of the appellant in the complaint
      that two partnership firms of M/s K.M. Agencies and M/s Mangla         H
    1170       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 6 S.C.R.


A Agencies were distinct, different and independent of each other.
     So far as Mis K.M. Agencies is concerned, there were only two
     partners, the appellant and Shashi Kant Mangla. Shashi Kant
     Mang la became one of the partners of other partnership firm as
  · well, i.e. of Mis Mang la Agencies. But the appellant-complainant
B had nothing to do with the other partnership firm, (Mis Mangla
    Agencies). Dues of Mis K.M. Agencies which were to be paid
    by Mis Johnson & Johnson Ltd. could not, in the circumstances,
    be diverted to the other partnership firm with which the appellant-
    complainant had no connection whatsoever. All the partners of
C Mis Mangla Agencies and all the officials of Mis Johnson &
    Johnson Ltd. were aware of this fact and yet in collusion with
    each other and with a view to deprive Mis K.M. Agencies in
    general and the appellant-complainant in particular, payment
    was made by Mis Johnson & Johnson Ltd. to Mis Mangla
    Agencies. Thus prima facie all the accused had committed
D offences mentioned in the FIR and the High Court should not
    have quashed it. The High Court was also not right, submitted
    the counsel, in holding that it was a civil dispute and there was
    abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant in initiating
    criminal proceedings. It was submitted that apart from civil
E liability, the accused persons had committed crimes and on the
    basis of allegations in the FIR, and on investigation being made,
    the police authorities found substance in the allegations of the
    complainant and charge-sheet was submitted. It was, therefore,
    submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting
F aside the order passed by the High Court by directing the
    respondents to face criminal proceedings.
         10. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents
   supported the order passed by the High Court. It was submitted
   that the dispute is of a civil nature. It was a dispute between two
G •partnership firms and initiation of criminal proceedings was only
   with a view to use pressure against the accused so that they will
   be constrained to enter into some settlement with the
   complainant. As per settled law, a court of law cannot be used
   as a means to pressurize the opposite party so that he may
H accede to the demand of the complainant. The High Court was
          SUNEET GUPTA v. ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA                  1171
                 & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

      convinced that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, A
      no criminal proceedings could have been initiated and hence,
      quashed the proceedings which cannot be said to be illegal or
      contrary to law. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeals
      deserve to be dismissed.
            11. On behalf of respondent No. 4, an affidavit is filed by B
      PPS, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana
"!"
      stating therein that the matter involved determination of
      complicated points of facts and law which could not have been
      gone into by the High Court in a writ petition. It was stated that
      detailed inquiry by PPS, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Sarabha     c
      Nagar, Ludhiana revealed that there was prima facie case of
      commission of offences punishable under Sections 468, 406
      read with 1208, IPC. Some accused were arrested also. In the
      circumstances, the High Court could not have aborted the
      proceedings as has been done.                                      D
            12. Having heard the learned counsel for.the parties and
      having considered the rival contentions, in our opinion, it cannot
      be said that the High Court was wrong in quashing criminal
      proceedings. It is clear from the case put forward by the appellant
      himself that virtually the proceedings were 'civil' in nature. There E
      were two partnership firms, one Mis K.M. Agencies, consisting
      of appellant and Shashi Kant Mang la and the other of Mis Mang la
      Agencies wherein Ravi Kant Mangla (one of the partners of Ml
      s K.M. Agencies) was a partner. It was the case of Shashi Kant
      Mang la that Mis K.M. Agencies was no more in existence and it F
 t    had changed its name from Mis K.M. Agencies to Mis Mangla
      Agencies and all the transactions of Mis K.M. Agencies would
      thereafter be dealt with by Mis Mangla Agencies. Obviously,
      therefore, payments which were to be made to Mis K.M.
      Agencies should be made to Mis Mangla Agencies. It also G
      appears that Mis Johnson & Johnson Ltd. was informed which
      changed the Code from Mis K.M. Agencies to Mis Mangla
      Agencies. It is further clear that though payments were made in
      June-July, 2001 by Mis Johnson & Johnson Ltd. to Mis Mangla
      Agencies, a notice through an advocate was issued by the H
    1172      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 6 S.C.R.


A complainant only on March 4, 2003, i.e. after substantial period
  about two years. A complaint was made to Director General of
  Police, Chandigarh by the complainant in May, 2003. The record
  further reveals, as stated by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the
  counter-affidavit, that it was contended by the accused that the
B matter was civil in nature and based on commercial transactions
  and there was a dispute between the parties and as such there
  was no element of mens rea. It was also submitted by the
  accused that the complainant, with an ulterior motive and ma/a
  fide intention, used pressure tactics and was harassing them in
C connivance with local police and filed a complaint on May 2,
  2003. The police authorities were convinced about the nature
  of dispute and after seeking legal opinion from District Attorney
  closed the proceedings. Subsequently, however, the
  complainant 'after making cosmetic changes in the earlier
  complaint' and using undue influence filed FIR No. 266 of 2003
D on September 16, 2003 for commission of offences punishable
  under Sections 468, 406 read with 1208, IPC. According to the
  accused, it was motivated and the police authorities obliged
  the complainant by helping him.
E         13. The High Court, in our opinion, rightly considered the
   facts in their proper perspective and observed that the dispute
   related to settlement of accounts between principal and its agent;
   the principal being M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. and the agent
   being M/s K.M. Agencies (earlier) and Mis Mangla Agencies
   (later). The High Court also noted that it was M/s K.M. Agencies
F ·which informed the principal i.e. M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd.           t
   that M/s K. M. Agencies had closed its business and the business
   was thereafter continued by M/s Mangla Agencies and all drafts
   be issued in favour of Mis Mangla Agencies. The High Court
   took note of the fact that even the complainant had informed the
G principal that there was dispute between the partners of Mis
   K.M. Agencies and hence no payment should be made to M/s
   Mang la Agencies till the dispute was finally resolved between
   the parties. That, however, does not give rise to criminal liability
   and entitle the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings,
H particularly when M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. substituted in the
         SUNEET GUPTA v. ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA                    1173
                & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]
A

      Company record name of M/s Mangla Agencies in place of M/            A
      s K.M. Agencies. The resultant effect of substitution of name
      was that whatever sums were due to M/s K.M. Agencies were
      considered to be due to M/s Mangla Agencies.
           14. The High Court, in the circumstances, observed as
      under;                                                               B

           "This is really a case of one partner trying to drag the
           principal company into a criminal litigation to recover dues
           which the principal had paid to the other partner. The
           dispute and the relationship inter se has become a tripartite
           one. SuneetGupta had a dispute with Shashi Kant Mangla
                                                                          c
           but instead of tackling him he got lodged F.l.R. No. 266
           dated September 16, 2003 registered at Police Station
          .Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 468/406/120-
           BIPC to pressurize the petitioners to settle the matter. It is
           not a clear cut and direct case in which any contractual D
-t         relationship between Suneet Gupta with the company has
           been breached. Indeed Suneet Gupta had no direct
           relationship with the company. It was M/s K.M. Aencies of
           which he was one of the partners which had developed
           contractual relationship and later in June/July, 2001, M/s E
           Mangla Agencies got substituted in place of M/s K.M.
           Agencies. Suneet Gupta either ignored this development
           or remained oblivious of it for nearly 2 years. The first
           notice was issued after passage of long time on March 4,
           2003. This notice was clearly to drag the company into the F
'jf        inter se dispute between two partners."
           15. The Court proceeded to state;
           "The complaint of Suneet Gupta and the steps taken by
           the police have clearly converted a tri-partite civil dispute   G
           into a criminal one and have involved the managers of the
           principals in a dispute between the partners of the firm."
           16. The High Court, therefore, concluded that the steps
      taken by the complainant Suneet Gupta were in clea~'abuse of
      process of law and accordingly allowed both the petitions.           H
    1174        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008) 6 S.C.R.


A         17. By passing the impugned order and quashing criminal
    proceedings, in our opinion, the High Court has neither
    committed any error of law nor of jurisdiction which deserves
    interference in exercise of power under Article 136 of the
    Constitution.
B         18. Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel
    forthe accused to several decisions of this Court. In our opinion,
    however, it is not necessary to refer to those decisions since
    we are of the view that the High Court was right in quashing
    criminal proceedings.
c
          19. We may, however, refer to one aspect. Learned
    Counsel for the appellant strenuously relied upon an order of
    this Court in State of Punjab v. Dharam Vir Singh Jethi, 1994
    sec (Cri) 500. In that case, charge-sheet was submitted by
    Police and thereafter FIR was quashed by the High Court.
0
           20. In the light of the said fact, this Court observed;
             "Heard learned counsel for the State as well as the
           contesting respondent. We are afraid that the High Court
           was not right in quashing the First Information Report on
E
           the plea that the said respondent had no role to play and
           was never the custodian of the paddy in question. In fact
           it was averred in the counter-affidavit filed in the High
           Court that the said respondent had acted in collusion with
           Kashmira Singh resulting in the latter misappropriating
F          the paddy in question. At the relevant point of time the
           respondent concerned, it is alleged, was in overall charge       •
           of the Government Seed Farm, Trehan. This allegation
           forms the basis of the involvement of the respondent
           concerned. The High Court was, therefore, wrong in saying
G          that the respondent concerned had no role to play. A
           specific role is assigned to him, it may be proved or may
           fail. In any case, pursuant to the First Information Report
           the investigation was undertaken and a charge-sheet or a
           police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal
H          Procedure was filed in the court. If the inves'tigation papers
    SUNEET GUPTA v. ANIL TRILOKNATH SHARMA                   1175
           & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.)

     annexed to the charge-sheet do not disclose the                 A
     commission of any crime by the respondent concerned, it
     would be open to the court to refuse to frame a charge, but
     quashing of the First Information Report was not
     permissible."
      21. In our opinion, however, the ratio laid down in the above 8
case will not apply to the facts of the case. As already indicated
in the earlier part of the judgment, FIR was lodged by the
complainant on September 16, 2003 and immediately within
less than a month, the accused invoked the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Section 482 of the Code by filing petitions on C
October 12, 2003. At that time, cha/Ian was not filed in the Court.
It was after a substantial period of about seven months that on
May 13, 2004, charge-sheet was filed by the police authorities.
Moreover, in Dharam Vir Singh, the accused was shown to be
in possession of property and later on misappropriated it. The D
High Court, however, quashed the proceedings inter alia
observing that the accused was never the custodian ·of paddy
and was not in charge of the Government Seed Farm which
was factually incorrect. In the light of factual scenario, this Court
set aside the order of the High Court quashing criminal E
proceedings.
      22. In the case on hand, the High Court was right in coming
to the conclusion that a civil dispute - pure and simple - between
the parties was sought to be converted into a criminal offence
only by resorting to pressure tactics and by taking police help      F
which was indeed abuse of process of law and has been rightly
prevented by the High Court.
      23. For the foregoing reasons, in our view, the order passed
by the High Court is in consonance with law and requires no          G
interference. The appeals deserve to be dismissed and are,
accordingly, dismissed.
S.K.S.                                      Appeals dismissed.

                                                                     H