1. Petitioner Vinay Aggarwal, has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), for quashing of FIR No.1/2022, dated 06.01.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, CID Bharari, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 170, 419, 420, 384, 386, 201, 120­B of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the ground that no case is made out against the petitioner, under the provisions, under which the FIR, in question, has been registered.

3. In order to substantiate his stand, the petitioner has pleaded that as per the allegations, as levelled in the FIR in question, the petitioner visited Kala Amb and Baddi area along with security guard of Haryana Police and proclaimed himself to be IG Intelligence Bureau

4. According to the petitioner, he is visiting these places for the last two years, as he is one of the owners of firm Kalprishi Healthways Private Limited. The said company took over the erstwhile RAS Herbal under the tripartite agreement executed between RAS Herbal, Kalprishi Healthways Private Limited and Punjab National Bank, on 19.06.2018.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that RAS Herbal was engaged in the business of manufacturing Ayurvadic Medicines for distribution and sale to various firms in Kala Amb and Baddi areas which was later on taken over by Kalprishi Healthways Private Limited, owned by the petitioner. After taking over the same, petitioner­ firm had manufactured Ayurvedic Medicines for being supplied to Jagbir Singh’s company Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Kala Amb, as well as, M/s N K Industries, M/s Tejas Medipack, M/s Jagbir Singh, M/s Ovation Remedies, M/s Saitech Medicare Private Limited, M/s Synergy Sciences and M/s Synergy Care.

6. According to the petitioner, he was duly engaged in various business transactions with Jagbir Singh’s Companies, on a regular basis, over the past many years. Jagbir Singh is well aware as to the identity of the petitioner. In this regard the petitioner has relied upon various tax invoices showing transactions with Jagbir Singh’s Company Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals. Said Jagbir Singh is solitary witness of the prosecution.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had advanced a sum of Rs.1,04,00,000/­, to said Jagbir Singh from 01.01.2020 till 21.12.2021, by remitting the amount in eight different companies owned by the petitioner. Said Jagbir Singh, as per the case of the petitioner, had also moved a complaint to SP Panchkula, as well as, to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Haryana.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that said Jagbir Singh, using his influence, got registered FIR No.215 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022, under Section 120­B, 177, 195, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, with Police Station, Sector 20, Panchkula, in which the petitioner had obtained bail under Section 438 Cr.PC, from Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is the further claim of the petitioner that the FIR, in question, is false, as he and Jagbir Singh are in business transactions. To substantiate this fact, he has relied upon document Annexure P­4.

9. All these facts have been pleaded to show that there was no occasion for the petitioner to proclaim himself to be the Inspector General, as he and Jagbir Singh are residents of Panchkula and known to each other, having business transactions.

10. Lastly, asserting the fact that no case is made out against the petitioner, he has requested to quash the FIR, in question.

11. When put to notice, the prayer, as made in the petition, has been contested by the respondent­State, by filing the reply.

12. In the reply, a stand has been taken that on the basis of source information report, which was received in the office of State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla, wherein, it has been mentioned that a person namely Vinay Aggarwal (petitioner) used to impersonate himself as IGP of Intelligence Bureau (I.B.), Government of India and makes frequent visits to the industrial area of Kala Amb and Baddi of Himachal Pradesh.

13. It is the further case of the respondent that as per the source information report, the said person keeps unauthorized security guards of Haryana Police, along with himself and abusing this designation for wrongful gain and is extorting lacs of rupees by pressurizing the industrialists and getting the payments into his bank accounts.

14. As per the respondent, thereafter, a discreet inquiry verification was done, in which, it has been found that the person is based in Panchkula, whose name and identity is not clear and the said person goes by the pseudonym of Vinay Aggarwal. He claims to be an IPS Officer in IGP Rank, working for the Intelligence Bureau, Government of India. However, in the Civil list of all India services of State/UT, his name has not been mentioned.

15. It is the further case of the respondent that as per the discreet verification, the matter was found to be of impersonation and extortion from firms/industrialists and private persons, so a request was made to get the matter inquired, through Crime Branch of State CID of H.P. Thereafter, the matter was inquired by Sub­Inspector Yog Raj of Police Station CID Shimla, who has further conducted inquiry and found the role of petitioner suspicious, as he has impersonated himself to be the IGP of Intelligence Bureau (I.B.).

16. According to the respondent, during inquiry, statement of account No.001301009593, maintained with ICICI Bank, has been obtained. As per the bank statement, Rs.2,32,708.54 were found there and on 23.12.2021, Rs.6,93,399.38 were found in this account. In nut shell, from 1.1.2020 to 23.12.2021, total amount of Rs.2,38,70,400/­ has been found to be deposited in the said account, which was found in the name of Vinay Aggarwal, Flat No.07, GH­11 Mansa Devi Complex Sector­ 5, Panchkula. After verifying the above address, it was found that no person named Vinay Aggarwal is residing at the above address.

17. As per the respondent, when the prima facie case was found in the inquiry, it has been decided to register regular FIR, so that regular investigation could be conducted, in the matter. Consequently, FIR, in question was registered.

18. It is the further case of the respondent that during investigation, it was found that Vinay Aggarwal (petitioner) was residing earlier in a rented accommodation in Flat No.7, GH11, Sector 5 MCD Panchkula. Thereafter, he has purchased Flat No.201, GH104E, in Sector 20 Panchkula. Thereafter, he has also purchased another house No.370, in Sector 9, Panchkula, Haryana, where he is residing with his family.

19. As per the respondent, during investigation search warrants were obtained from learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Nahan, District Sirmaur. Thereafter on 16.1.2022, the house of the petitioner was searched and Indian Currency of Rs.7,25,000/­, US Dollar 6717, a GOs police stick, in which IPS was written with Ashoka Symbol placed on one end, a revolver 7.65 mm, with 5 rounds were found.

20. According to the respondent, apart from this, the documents regarding ownership of the landed property worth crores of rupees were also taken into possession. After perusing these documents, it was found that petitioner had purchased Kothi No.370, Sector 9 Panchkula from Shri Kiran Bhatia and Sunil Taneja for Rs.1,90,00,000/­. Apart from this, the petitoner has bought Plot No.157/Part facing Sector 82 Alpha in SAS Nagar, Mohali for Rs.1,10,00,000/­. Thereafter, SIT was constituted on 02.02.2022 to investigate the case under the leadership of Rohit Malpani (IPS) Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime CID, Shimla.

21. It is the further case of the respondent that during investigation, it has also been found that Mr. K.K. Mishra, who was ADGP Jail, in Police Department and now is the member of the police complaint authority of Haryana and Mr. Alok Rai, who is presently ADGP of modernization, Haryana Police, are very good friends of accused Vinay Aggarwal. HC Raj Singh, Government Railway Police, Haryana, Jail Warder Jasveer Singh, Constable Sandeep Singh and Constable Ravinder Singh of Haryana Police were stated to be posted in Chandigarh/Panchkula, with both the officers. These police officials were found to be performing their duties with uniforms and weapons with fake IG Vinay Aggarwal. Constable Ravinder Singh and Jail Warder Jasveer Singh were arrested, in this case, on 09.02.2022 and bailed out by learned Sessions Judge, Nahan, on 04.03.2022. Accused Vinay Aggarwal, and HC Raj Singh got the interim bail from this Court on 13.04.2022. Shri Lagan Verma and his father Shri Manoj Kumar, had also filed interim bail applications before this Court. However, during investigation, no allegations were found against Shri Lagan Verma and Manoj Kumar.

22. It is the further stand of the respondent that the petitioner and Sh. Jagbir Singh were not in business transactions. As per the investigation, it was found that petitioner has extorted a sum of Rs. 1.41 Crores from Jagbir Singh, on various occasions, and the said amount was deposited in the individual bank account of petitioner Vinay Aggarwal, through various transactions. The said amount was allegedly extorted from Jagbir Singh by putting him under pressure and threatening, as, he impersonated himself to be an IG of IB, and close to the political leaders.

23. According to the respondent, the petitioner was not known to Jagbir Singh, prior to the act of extortion by the petitioner. According to the respondent, it was found during the investigation that during the restriction imposed, due to Covid­19 pandemic, in the year 2020, Sh. Sanjeev Sethi introduced the Vinay Aggarwal (petitioner) to Jagbir Singh as IGP of IB and the petitioner has pressurized Jagbir Singh during Covid period to supply the medicines to Sanjeev Aggarwal and Sanjeev Sethi.

24. It is the further case of the respondent that petitioner had allegedly extorted R.1,41,00,000/­ from Sh. Jagbir Singh and Rs.8,00,000/­ from Rajneesh Pahwa partner of Tejas company. Petitioner Vinay Aggarwal, has many times visited the Symbiosis factory of Jagbir Singh, situated in Kala Amb of District Sirmour H.P., along with police officials of Haryana. Even, the then Dy. SP of Narayangarh had also accompanied him, being on escort duty, in Symbiosis factory. At that time, he was also escorted and piloted by Haryana police. In this regard, the State has relied upon the alleged footage of video clip, which was found in the mobile phone of petitioner Vinay Aggarwal, during the investigation.

25. The respondent has also relied upon the Whatsapp chat, between Jasbir Singh and petitioner Vinay Aggarwal. Vinay Aggarwal, is stated to be using three phone numbers, bearing mobile 99881­00000, 97816­ 00100 and 92159­70003, whereas, as per the record, Mobile Nos.99881­00000, 97816­00100 belong to Sh Manoj Kumar Dy. Commandant of Home Guard, Haryana and third No.92159­70003 belongs to Sh. Subhash driver of the accused Vinay Aggarwal. Even, in the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C, Manoj Kumar Dy. Commandant of Home Guard had deposed that these phone numbers were given by him to petitioner Vinay Aggarwal, on the direction of Sh. K.K Mishra, the then ADGP of Haryana.

26. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.

27. As per the copy of the report, under Section 173 (2) Cr.PC, the police has filed copy of charge sheet, which was submitted to the learned APP for scrutiny against petitioner Vinay Aggarwal, accused Ravinder Singh, Jasvir Singh and Raj Singh, under Sections 170, 419, 420, 384, 386, 201, 120­B of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, whereas, under Sections 170, 419, 420, 384, 120­B of the IPC, against Kameshwar Kumar Mishra and Alok Roy.

28. Along with the petition, an application for staying the further proceedings has been moved, which has been registered as Cr.MP No.2278 of 2024. Reply to the said application has been filed by the State through Director General of Police, in which, the factual position, as mentioned, in the reply to the main petition, as well as, in the FIR has been re­asserted.

29. In the said reply, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has moved an application under Section 239 Cr.PC, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), for discharge.

30. It is the further stand in the reply that the applicant had filed an application, along with annexed documents and statement of witness, filed later on before DGP/CID, in reference to his application preferred under Section 239 Cr.PC.

31. Along with the reply, copy of the status report, was filed by Incharge, Police Station, CID Bharari dated 18.5.2024, in the present petition. It has been mentioned in the status report that on 19.4.2024, Vinay Aggarwal has moved an application before the Police Station, CID Bharari, disclosing therein that investigation, in the case, has not been conducted properly and wrong report has been submitted in the Court, as such, he has prayed that FIR be cancelled.

32. Thereafter, petitioner Vinay Aggarwal, was associated in the investigation on 22.4.2024 and he has made written submissions, disclosing therein, that Jagbir Singh, who is complainant, in this case, is having commercial transactions with him, which they have settled.

33. Apart from this, Bharat Singh, Jagbir Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Rajneesh Pahwa had also appeared before the police and deposed that their statements had been obtained under Section 161 Cr.PC, under pressure and according to them, the dispute was with regard to the money transaction, which has been settled by them. As such, they have prayed that re­investigation be conducted. PWs Karam Singh, Rushi Rewaria and Sagar Praveen, although have not been associated, in the investigation, but, they have made a written application that their statements under Section 161 Cr.PC, were record under pressure.

34. In Annexure R­5, which is copy of status report filed in this case, it has been mentioned that PWs Bharat Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Rajneesh Pahwa, Khasi Revariya, Karam Singh and Sagar Praveen, have deposed that their statements, under Section 161 Cr.PC., were recorded under pressure and all of them have prayed that the FIR be cancelled.

35. In addition to this, it has been mentioned that Jagbir Singh has produced his self written statement, disclosing therein that the amount, which he had to take from the petitioner, has been returned to him and now, he does not want any further action against the petitioner.

36. Interestingly, all these documents have been produced by the Police. As such, it can be said that these documents are not in dispute, as, respondents have not only produced these documents, but, the statements, allegedly made by the above witnesses, before the Police Station, CID, in their hand writing, has been translated and attested, as, true copy, by SI Prakash Chand.

37. In such situation, the question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is, as to whether these documents can be taken into consideration or not.

38. Situation would have been otherwise, had these documents been produced by the petitioner, who had approached this Court, for quashing of FIR, as, this Court, while exercising the powers, under Section 482 Cr.PC. (528 BNSS), cannot look into the documents, which have been produced, by the petitioner and are not the part of the police investigation, whereas, in this case, these documents have voluntarily been produced, by the respondent, along with the reply to the application, bearing Cr.MP No. 2278 of 2024, filed for staying the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court.

39. The authenticity of these documents, has not been questioned by the respondent, as, it is not the stand of the respondent that the authenticity of the documents is yet to be ascertained.

40. When, the documents, which were allegedly produced, by the witnesses, before the Police and the Police thereafter produced the same, along with the status report,after translating the hand written documents, before this Court, the authenticity of these documents cannot be said to be in dispute. These documents are the statements, allegedly made by the star prosecution witnesses, whose names have been mentioned at Serial No.1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18.

41. The main thrust of the prosecution, in this case, is that the petitioner had extorted money from Jagbir Singh and keeping in view the statement of the Jagbir Singh, which, he had made before the Police, in Police Station, it seems that the dispute between the parties was regarding the financial transaction, to which a criminal colour has been given, by the Police, on the basis of the said alleged source report.

42. In view of the statements, so made by these witnesses, as referred to above, this Court is of the view that the chances of success of the prosecution case, against the petitioner, during the trial, are very bleak and if the petitioner, in such circumstances, faces the agony of trial, it would be nothing, but, the abuse of process of law.

43. Admittedly, there is no complaint, in this case, and the FIR, in question, has been registered, on the basis of some source report. Even, in the reply, a stand has been taken that the petitioner posing himself to be the IG of IB, Government of India, had allegedly extorted a sum of Rs.1,41,00,000/­.

44. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent, could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court that the alleged act of the petitioner in purchasing Kothi and Plots, for crores of rupees, does constitute an offence, in the absence of any specific allegations regarding the said extortion.

45. In this case, the pivotal role has been attributed to Jagbir Singh from whom, the petitioner has allegedly extorted money. When, the said person had exonerated the petitioner, by making the statement, regarding the settlement with the petitioner, regarding the money transaction, then, there is no justifiable cause to keep the proceedings alive before the learned trial Court.

46. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Kim Wansoo versus State of Utter Pradesh & others, Neutral Citation No. 2025 INSC 8, has reiterated its earlier decision in State of Haryana & Others versus Bhajan Lal & Others, AIR 1992, Supreme Court 604., regarding the power of Courts under Section 482 Cr.PC. Relevant paragraphs 6 and 11 of the judgment are reproduced as under:­

"6. It is worthwhile to refer to some of the decisions of this Court in regard to the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings before considering the rival contentions with reference to the allegations made in the subject FIR, as extracted above. It is true that normally, quashing of criminal proceedings would be sought and would be done in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. But certainly, that does not mean that it could not be done only in invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This position was made clear by this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. After considering the statutory provisions of Cr. P.C. and the earlier decisions of this Court, in the said decision this Court held that in the following categories of cases, the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. could be exercised by the High Court, either to prevent abuse process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This Court went on to observe and hold that it might not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised and encapsulate the following cases falling under such categories: ­

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non­cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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.

xxx xxx xxx

11. In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another. v. State of U.P. and Anr., whereunder this Court, in so far as it is relevant, held thus: ­

“34……...it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/ complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/ registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation….”

47. In this case, the statement of Jagbir Singh has been placed on record by the Police itself and if the circumstances are seen in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar & Another versus The State of Karnataka & Another, Neutral Citation No.2024 INSC 196, then there is no legal hesitation for this Court to say that the matter has now been settled regarding the allegations levelled against the petitioner that he had extorted money from him after posing himself to be the IGP of IB. Relevant paragraphs 7 and 8 are reproduced as under:­

“7. Essentially, the present dispute between the parties relates to a breach of contract. A mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case, as held by this Court in Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2023) 5 SCC 360. Similarly, dealing with the distinction between the offence of cheating and a mere breach of contractual obligations, this Court, in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293, has held that every breach of contract would not give rise to the offence of cheating, and it is required to be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. 8. In the case at hand, the dispute between the parties was not only essentially of a civil nature but in this case the dispute itself stood settled later as we have already discussed above. We see no criminal element here and consequently the case here is nothing but an abuse of the process. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court dated 02.12.2020. The criminal 9 proceedings arising out of FIR No.113 of 2017 will hereby stand quashed.”

48. As per the documents, which have been produced by the police, along with the reply to the application, for staying the proceedings, PW Jagbir Singh has given in writing about the fact that the money, which Vinay Aggarwal (petitioner), owes from him, has now been paid and that now, he does not want to take any action against the petitioner Vinay Aggarwal. From this fact, there is no legal hesitation to draw an inference that the dispute between the parties was with regard to some money transaction and the allegations seem to have been levelled in order to get the same amount back or settled the matter.

49. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case G. Sagar Suri & Another versus State of U.P. & Others, 2000 (2) Supreme Court Cases 636, has quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 406, 420 IPC where the FIR was lodged by the General Manager of the petitioner Company, roping the appellants and his family members in order to coerce them to refund the amount borrowed by them from the Company. Relevant paragraphs 11 to 14 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:­

"11. In Chandrapal Singh and Others v. Maharaj Singh and Another, AIR (1982) SC 1238, the judgment started as under ;­

"A frustrated landlord after having met his Waterloo in the hierarchy of civil courts, has further enmeshed the tenant in a frivolous criminal prosecution which prima facie appears to be an abuse of the process of law. The facts when stated are so, telling that the further discussion may appear to be superfluous.

This Court said :­

"We see some force in the submission but it is equally true that chargrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give' vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court. Complainant herein is an Advocate. He lost in both courts in the rest control proceedings and has now rushed to the criminal court. This itself speaks volumes. Add to this the fact that another suit between the parties was pending from 1975. The conclusion is inescapable that invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court in this background is an abuse of the process of law and the High Court rather glossed over this important fact while declining to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr. P.C."

12. This Court said that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Secunderabad ought not to have taken cognizance of the proceedings. It said it considered it to be a fit case to involve jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

13. In the circumstances of the case in hand conclusion is inescapable that invoking the jurisdiction of criminal court for allegedly having committed offences under Sections 406/420 IPC by the appellants is certainly an abuse of the process of law. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant it is now admitted that none of the two appellants is a Director of Ganga Automobiles Ltd. Only in respect of the first appellant it is stated that he is the authorised signatory of that company and that in fact he had signed the cheques which were returned dishonoured. Apart from making the omnibus statement that the first appellant with dishonest intentions and misrepresentations got loan of Rs. 50,00,000 from the com­ plainant company for Ganga Automobiles Ltd. there is nothing said as to what were those misrepresentations and how the complainant company was duped. The only part attributed to the second appellant is that the first appellant along with Ashwani Suri, Managing Director and Mukender Singh, Director approached the complainant in June, 19% and had repre­ sented that they and Shalini Suri, Shama Suri (Appellant No. 2), Charanjit Singh and M.L. Kampani were the Directors of Ganga Automobiles Ltd. There is nothing stated in the counter affidavit about the role, if any, played by the second appellant. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has already been filed by the complainant. There is no allegation of any corrupt practice by any of the accused as if they duped the Finance Company in parting with the amount of Rs. 50,00,000, As normally understood business of a finance company is to invite deposits, pay interest on that and also to give loans and earn interest. A finance company also advances short term loans. In that case it is essentially a commercial transaction. After first two cheques were dishonoured two cheques were again issued, which again were dishonoured resulting in filing of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. None of the respondents has been able to explain as to why offences under Sections 406/420 IPC were not added in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and why resort was had to filing of a separate First Information Report. Certain motive has been attributed to the investigating officer but we think we need not go into that. There is also no answer as to why investigation against three other directors was still stated to be pending when same role is assigned to all the accused. In the FIR it is Sukhvender Singh, who first approached the complainant, but later it is Mukender Singh. There is no answer as to why there are two different names. as to who are the Directors of Ganga Automobiles Ltd. could have been easily found by the complainant after going through the records of Registrar of Companies and also about its status. As noted above, in the subsequent statement by the complainant he does not assign any role to the first appellant. The allegation that in the first instance three persons contacted the complainant company, who told the complainant of other Directors with whom the complainant conversed on telephone appears to be rather improbable.

14. We agree with the submission of the appellants that the whole attempt of the complainant is evidently to rope in all the members of the family particularly who are the parents of the Managing Director or Ganga Automobile Ltd. in the instant criminal case without regard to their role or participation in the alleged offences with a sole purpose of getting the loan due to the Finance Company by browbeating and tyrannizing the appellants of criminal prosecution. A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act is already pending against the appellants and other accused. They would suffer the consequences if offence under Section 138 is proved against them. In any case there is no occasion for the complainant to prosecute the appellants under Sections 406/420 IPC and in his doing so it is clearly an abuse of the process of law and prosecution against the appellants for those offences is liable to be quashed, which we do.

50. At the cost of repetition, in this case, the true intention of the person, who was allegedly been forced to pay money to the petitioner, becomes crystal clear, when he had given his statement to the police, disclosing therein that the dispute with regard to the payment of the amount has now been settled, as petitioner has repaid the amount. Meaning thereby, the real dispute between the petitioner and the star witnesses of the prosecution was with regard to some money transaction. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported as Indian Oil Corporation versus NEPC India Ltd & Others, (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 736, has also deprecated the practice of misuse of criminal process to put undue pressure in civil disputes. Relevant paragraph 13 of the judgment are reproduced as under:­

"10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect 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 a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State of UP [2000 (2) SCC 636], this Court observed:

"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

51. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, then, it can safely be held that the witnesses had deposed, against the petitioner, before the Police in order to settle their civil dispute.

52. In the report, under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, copy of which has been placed, on record, by the respondent, it has been mentioned that during the search of the house of petitioner Vinay Aggarwal, at Panchkula, a licensed revolver was also recovered, along with other documents. When, the said weapon is stated to be licensed one, as per the reply, as well as, the report, under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, available on record, then, the learned Additional Advocate General, could not point out, as to how the provisions of Section 25 of the Arms Act, were attracted in this Case.

53. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.1 of 2022, dated 06.01.2022, registered with Police Station, CID Bharari Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 170, 419, 420, 384, 386, 201, 120­B of the IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, qua the petitioner, are ordered to be quashed.

54. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.