Assurance Intl Limited vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 13.03.2026
Judgment delivered on : 01.07.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 5867/2022, CRL.M.A. 23041/2022, CRL.M.A.
7024/2023, CRL.M.A. 7026/2023 & CRL.M.A. 1497/2025
ASSURANCE INTL LIMITED .....Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Kushal Kumar, Mr. Rahul Meena, Mr.
Akash Deep Gupta, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain,
Mr. Hanif Chimthanawala, Advs. & Ms.
Sanal Anand AR.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC with Mr. Arjit
Sharma, Adv. for the State.
SI Naveen, DIU/SED.
Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Mr. Divjot Singh
Bhatia & Mr. Vaibhav Dubey, Advs. along
with R-2.
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Nikunj
Bindal, Adv. for UOI.
CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘ CrPC ’) seeking quashing of FIR No.
294/2022, dated 30.09.2022, registered at Police Station Hazarat
Nizamuddin under Sections 406/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 1 of 33
1806 (‘ IPC ’), along with consequential proceedings emanating
therefrom.
Factual Matrix
2. The present FIR came to be registered pursuant to a complaint
submitted by Mr. Ajit Singh, partner of M/s Dass Automobiles
( hereinafter referred to as ‘ Complainant ’ ), alleging commission of
offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation
by the Petitioner Company, namely M/s Assurance International
Limited, operating under the brand name “ Goodyear Lubricants ” and
its officials.
3. It is alleged that officials of the Petitioner Company approached
the complainant for appointment as distributor of lubricant products
for New Delhi and represented that the Petitioner Company was
associated with “ Goodyear ”, a reputed international brand, and that its
products meet the high international quality standards.
4. It is further alleged that relying upon such representations, the
complainant was induced to place orders with the Petitioner Company
of approximately Rs.1.75 crores, between January 2021 and March
2022.
5. It is alleged that after the products of the Petitioner Company
were introduced into the market by the complainant, he started
receiving complaints from customers regarding the quality of the
products. It is alleged that the products of the Petitioner Company
were inferior, mixed with water and made from reused substances. It
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 2 of 33
is further alleged that despite repeated complaints made through e-
mails, messages and phone calls, no satisfactory action was taken by
the Petitioner Company. When the complainant sought replacement of
products and refund of amounts paid, the officials of the Petitioner
Company threatened him with dire consequences and terminated his
distributorship in March 2022. It was further alleged that Invoice No.
GYL-01161 dated 24.02.2022 amounting to Rs.4,33,970/- was raised
for material which was never delivered to the complainant.
6. It is further alleged that due to the alleged inferior quality of the
products supplied by the Petitioner Company, the goodwill and
reputation of the complainant’s business suffered adversely and
various amounts remained unrecovered from customers. It is alleged
that an amount of approximately Rs.18,33,970/- was due towards
credit notes, stock worth approximately Rs.20,00,000/- had become
dead stock and an amount of approximately Rs.23,00,000/- remained
stuck in the market due to complaints received from customers
regarding the products. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the
present FIR under Sections 406/420/506 of the IPC came to be
registered at Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin.
7. During the course of investigation, notices under Section 91
Cr.P.C. were issued to the complainant, pursuant to which the
complainant joined investigation and reiterated the allegations made in
the complaint. The complainant further alleged that the initial batches
of products supplied by the Petitioner Company did not disclose the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 3 of 33
place of manufacture and carried the flag of the United States of
America, thereby creating a false impression that the products were
manufactured in the USA by the “ Goodyear ” brand, whereas the
subsequent batches disclosed that the products were manufactured in
India by the Petitioner Company.
8. The complainant further supplied copies of complaints,
allegedly received from Jinesh Tour and Travels, Lucky Generators
and Perfect Automobiles, alleging that their vehicles or machinery
became non-functional after use of the lubricant products supplied
through the complainant. Statements of the said persons were recorded
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they further stated that
issues had arisen in the functioning of their vehicles or machinery
after use of the products supplied by the complainant. The
complainant, however, did not furnish any material in support of the
allegation regarding criminal intimidation.
9. Notices under Section 91 of the CrPC were issued to Goodyear
India Limited seeking clarification regarding any relationship between
Goodyear and the Petitioner Company. In response, Goodyear India
Limited informed that it had no direct relationship with the Petitioner
Company but stated that its parent company, namely The Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company , USA had granted a trademark licence to the
Petitioner Company.
10. A further notice was issued to The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, USA, seeking verification of the trademark licensing
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 4 of 33
arrangement, in response to which it was stated that the request was
required to be processed in accordance with Section 166A of the
Cr.P.C. and the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty procedure.
Proceedings under Section 166A of the Cr.P.C. were thereafter
initiated for verification of the trademark licence agreement dated
09.04.2020 allegedly executed between The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, USA and M/s Assurance International Limited, however
complete verification could not be concluded during investigation.
11. The investigating agency thereafter issued notices under
Sections 91 and 160 of the Cr.P.C. to the Directors and officials of the
Petitioner Company. In response thereto, representatives of the
Petitioner Company joined the investigation and denied the allegations
made in the complaint. It was stated that M/s Assurance International
Limited was an authorised licensee of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, USA under a trademark licence agreement dated
09.04.2020, subsequently amended on 03.02.2022, and had been
granted rights to manufacture, distribute and market lubricant
products, batteries and filters under the Goodyear trademark. It was
further stated that the Petitioner Company had supplied products
worth approximately Rs.1,75,00,410/- to the complainant and that the
distributorship of M/s Dass Automobiles had been terminated due to
alleged non-compliance with company policies. The officials of the
Petitioner Company also stated that the products were manufactured at
its manufacturing unit situated at Hisar, Haryana.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 5 of 33
12. The investigation further revealed that in a Welcome E-mail
dated 09.01.2021, issued by the Petitioner Company to the
complainant, the Petitioner Company had allegedly represented that
the products were laboratory tested, manufactured in accordance with
international standards and guaranteed to perform as per API
specifications. During investigation, Mr. Mukesh Sharma, CEO of the
Petitioner Company, stated that the Petitioner Company followed API
guidelines for maintaining quality standards, though it had not claimed
that the products were API certified, and further stated that the
company possessed ISO/IEC 17025:2017 certification. It was also
stated that certain internal documents relating to product composition,
formulations and technical data could not be furnished on grounds of
confidentiality and trade secrecy.
13. The investigating agency also issued notices under Section 91
Cr.P.C. to the Registrar of Companies and examined records relating
to directors and financial disclosures of the Petitioner Company. The
investigation noted that ROC records reflected no foreign currency
expenditure during financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22, though the
balance sheets reflected provisions relating to “GY fee”. It was also
noted that no collaboration agreement or resolution concerning the
arrangement with The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company had been
filed with the Registrar of Companies.
14. During the pendency of proceedings before this Court, the
Petitioner Company, pursuant to order dated 01.06.2023 passed by this
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 6 of 33
Court, furnished a redacted copy of the trademark licence agreement
dated 09.04.2020 executed between The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, USA and M/s Assurance International Limited.
15. Samples of lubricant products, supplied by the Petitioner
Company, were thereafter seized and sent for examination to Shri
Ram Laboratory, Noida. As per the laboratory report, the samples
conformed to applicable Indian Standards and were found to be
synthetic-based products. The laboratory further observed that
verification of compliance with API specifications would require
relevant API guidelines or specifications from the manufacturer,
which had not been provided.
16. During investigation, statements of Mukesh Sharma, Rakesh
Sharma, Neeti Sharma and Satya Bhama Sharma were recorded,
wherein it was stated that major business and legal decisions relating
to Goodyear licensed products were being handled by Mr. Mukesh
Sharma.
17. During the pendency of the present petition, chargesheet was
filed under Sections 420/406/120-B/34 of the IPC against the
Petitioner Company and its officials, namely, Mukesh Sharma, Sanjay
Sharma, Rakesh Sharma, Neeti Sharma and Satya Bhama Sharma.
Submissions on behalf of the parties
18. The learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioner
submitted that the subject FIR is a manifest abuse of the criminal
process and has been instituted by Respondent No. 2 with mala fide
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 7 of 33
intentions, arising out of commercial disputes between the parties
following termination of the distributorship of Respondent No. 2 by
the Petitioner Company. He submitted that a bare perusal of the
subject FIR itself, demonstrates that the allegations primarily pertain
to supply of alleged defective products, disputes regarding
refund/replacement, adjustment of credit notes, outstanding payments
and termination of distributorship, all of which are purely civil and
commercial disputes which have deliberately been given a criminal
colour. He submitted that Section 506 of the IPC has itself been
dropped in the chargesheet and even if the allegations contained in the
FIR or the chargesheet are taken at face value, no ingredients of
offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B/34 of the IPC are
disclosed.
19. He submitted that the allegations do not disclose any dishonest
or fraudulent intention on part of the Petitioners since the inception of
the transactions, which is a sine qua non for constituting an offence
under Section 420 of the IPC.
20. He submitted that the Respondent No. 2 was appointed as
distributor in January 2021 and continued commercial dealings with
the Petitioner for nearly 15 months, during which period goods worth
approximately Rs.1.75 crores were supplied pursuant to more than 40
separate purchase orders placed by Respondent No. 2. Had there been
any deception or fraudulent intention from the very inception, the
parties would not have continued regular business transactions over
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 8 of 33
such an extended period. The Petitioner Company had also extended
various business incentives, promotional schemes, credit notes and
manpower support to Respondent No. 2 during the subsistence of the
distributorship, which itself negates any allegation of dishonest
intention.
21. He submitted that the only allegation of alleged
“ misrepresentation ” in the FIR pertains to the association of the
Petitioner Company with The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
USA. The said allegation is entirely untenable and stands contradicted
by the material collected during investigation itself. The investigation
revealed that the Petitioner Company is an authorised licensee of The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, USA under a trademark licence
agreement dated 09.04.2020. He submitted that the said position
stands duly substantiated from the Authorization Letter issued by
Goodyear USA, the replies furnished by Goodyear India during
investigation, the documents placed before the Trademark Registry, as
well as the verification conducted by the Trademark Registry
confirming the grant of trademark licence in favour of the Petitioner
Company.
22. He submitted that the allegation that the products supplied by
the Petitioner were sub-standard, mixed with water, reused or spurious
also stand disproved by the investigation and laboratory reports. He
submitted that the laboratory reports of the Petitioner Company’s
products confirmed that the samples conformed to applicable Indian
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 9 of 33
Standards and were synthetic-based. The Complainant has also failed
to furnish any particulars of the customers who allegedly suffered
losses and refused making payments on account of inferior quality of
products.
23. He submitted that no offence under Section 406 of the IPC is
made out as there are no allegations whatsoever regarding entrustment
of any property to the Petitioners, which constitutes the foundational
ingredient of criminal breach of trust. Any outstanding amount or
payment, if at all, would be related to reconciliation of accounts and
such commercial disagreements cannot constitute misappropriation
so as to attract Section 406 of the IPC.
24. He further submitted that the complainant repeatedly
approached multiple authorities and police stations in Delhi and
Haryana on the very same set of allegations, including the office of the
Chief Minister, Haryana, Police Station Sadar Thana, Gurugram and
Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin, Delhi. He submitted that despite
the complaints already being pending before the Gurugram Police and
despite the complaint filed before Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin
having been transferred by the DCP, South-East Delhi to Police
Station Sadar Thana, Gurugram on 22.06.2022, the present FIR
thereafter came to be registered at Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin
on the same allegations. He submitted that the repeated filing of
complaints before different authorities and police stations on the same
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 10 of 33
cause of action clearly demonstrates forum shopping, mala fide intent
and abuse of the criminal process by the complainant.
25. Per contra , the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing
for the State vehemently opposed the present petition. He submitted
that upon completion of investigation and analysis of the material
collected during investigation, sufficient material had come on record
disclosing commission of offences punishable under Sections
420/406/120-B/34 IPC against the accused persons and accordingly a
Charge Sheet came to be filed before the learned Trial Court on
19.12.2024.
26. He submitted that the investigation in the present case already
stands concluded and the Petitioners now have an efficacious remedy
to raise all pleas available to them at the stage of consideration on
charge before the learned Trial Court. It was further submitted that at
this stage, when the investigating agency has already completed
investigation and filed the Charge Sheet after collecting material in
support of the allegations, no ground for exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC is made out and the present
petition is liable to be dismissed.
27. The learned Counsel for the Complainant opposed the present
petition and submitted that the material collected during investigation
clearly discloses commission of cognizable offences and reveals
deliberate false representations and inducement on part of the
Petitioner from the inception of the transaction. He submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 11 of 33
Petitioner induced the complainant into entering the distributorship
arrangement and placing orders worth approximately Rs.1.75 Crores
by representing that the products were backed by Goodyear USA,
developed with its support and guaranteed to perform as per API
specifications.
28. He submitted that the investigation revealed several
contradictions in the stand of the Petitioner Company. Despite
repeated notices, the Petitioner failed to provide any material showing
that the products were approved by Goodyear USA or compliant with
API specifications. It was submitted that while the Welcome E-mail
and product labels expressly referred to API standards, the CEO of the
Petitioner Company subsequently stated during investigation that the
Company had nowhere claimed that the products were API certified.
He submitted that the laboratory clarification relied upon during
investigation only stated that the products met Indian Standards and
that API compliance could not be verified in absence of relevant
specifications and documents from the Petitioner Company.
29. He further submitted that although the Petitioner represented
that Goodyear USA was providing technical know-how, support and
development, the financial documents and balance sheets of the
Petitioner did not disclose foreign exchange transactions towards
royalty, technical know-how or import of raw materials despite the
alleged License Agreement contemplating payments in USD. He
submitted that the material collected during investigation prima facie
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 12 of 33
indicates that the Petitioner was supplying its own products while
projecting them as products backed and developed by Goodyear USA
so as to induce the complainant into obtaining distributorship and
placing substantial orders.
30. He lastly submitted that the allegation of abuse of process on
account of multiple complaints is also misconceived. He submitted
that the entire cause of action arose within Delhi since the products
were supplied to the Complainant in Delhi and the distributorship
itself pertained to Delhi. He submitted that the complaint filed at
Gurugram was subsequently withdrawn by the Complainant and the
same stands verified in the Status Reports filed by the State.
31. Hence, it is urged that the present petition be dismissed.
32. I have heard the arguments advanced and perused the material
placed on record.
Analysis and Findings
33. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the Petitioner has
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of the
present FIR. While this Court needs to exercise restraint in stifling
prosecution, however, the inherent jurisdiction can be exercised if it is
found that the continuance of criminal proceedings would be a clear
abuse of process of law. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , had illustrated
certain categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 13 of 33
exercised to prevent abuse of process of law and secure the ends of
justice. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
“102...(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 non-cognizable 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. ”
(emphasis supplied)
34. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation
v. NEPC India Limited and Others : (2006) 6 SCC 736 has discussed
the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 14 of 33
criminal proceedings. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced
hereunder:
“12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and
reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few—
Madhavrao JiwajiraoScindia v. SambhajiraoChandrojiraoAngre
[(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] ,
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] , Central Bureau of Investigation v.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri)
1045] , State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 :
1996 SCC (Cri) 628] , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999)
3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] , Medchl Chemicals & Pharma
(P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
615] , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4
SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] , M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh
[(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1
SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] . The principles, relevant to our
purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole,
but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a
detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an
assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in
the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing
of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of
the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is
found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking
vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd
and inherently improbable.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 15 of 33
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or
scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used
sparingly and with abundant caution……”
(emphasis supplied)
35. It is true that in case it is found that the proceedings are
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or are instituted with the ulterior
motive of wreaking vengeance, this Court ought to look into the FIR
with care and little more closely. The Court can look into the attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case and can read
between the lines. If the allegations are far-fetched and it appears that
the provisions of the IPC are misused, the Court can interfere while
exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC [Ref. Mahmood Ali
& Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors. : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950;
Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1083 ].
36. The preliminary issue which arises for consideration in the
present case is the objection raised on behalf of the Respondents that
during the pendency of the present petition, investigation already
stands concluded and the Charge Sheet has been filed before the
learned Trial Court and therefore the Petitioners ought to urge all their
contentions at the stage of consideration on charge instead of seeking
quashing of the FIR in the present proceedings.
37. It is well settled that this Court in exercise of the powers
conferred vide Section 482 of the CrPC retains the power to quash an
FIR, even after charge sheet has been filed in a particular case,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 16 of 33
provided that this Court is satisfied that the allegations in the FIR and
charge sheet, even if accepted as true and correct, do not disclose the
commission of any offence or that continuation of proceedings arising
out of such an FIR would in fact be an abuse of the process of Court.
Reference in this regard may be drawn to the judgment in
ShaileshbhaiRanchhodbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat :2024 SCC
OnLine SC 5569 where the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“7. The question of law involved in these two appeals as to whether
quashing of the FIR should have been refused for no other reason
than that the investigating officer has filed the charge-sheet is no
longer res integra. Decisions of this Court to such effect are legion.
We may profitably refer to the decisions of this Court in Ruchi
Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo3, Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) Home Department4 and Abhishek v. State of
Madhya Pradesh5.
8. On the authority of the aforesaid decisions, law seems to be
well-settled that the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C.
retains the power to quash an FIR, even after charge-sheet under
Section 173(2) thereof is filed, provided a satisfaction is reached,
inter alia, that either the FIR and the charge-sheet read together,
even accepted as true and correct without rebuttal, does not
disclose commission of any offence or that continuation of
proceedings arising out of such an FIR would in fact be an abuse
of the process of law as well as of the Court given the peculiar
circumstances of each particular case .”
(emphasis supplied)
38. It is also pertinent to note that the availability of a remedy
before the learned Trial Court at the stage of charge or discharge
cannot operate as a bar to the maintainability of proceedings under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Reference in this regard can be drawn to
the judgment in Mukesh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 17 of 33
Ors. : SLP No. 12354/2024 where the Hon’ble Apex Court held as
under:
“5. By the impugned order dated 8th May, 2024, which is a one
line order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition 1 on the
statement of the first informant that a charge-sheet has been filed.
We are surprised to note that without considering the case of the
appellants on merits, the petition has been dismissed as
infructuous. We fail to understand how a petition for quashing
criminal proceedings becomes infructuous on the ground of filing
of a chargesheet. Only on this ground itself, the impugned order
deserves to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh submits
that the High Court order does not call for interference as the
appellants have an efficacious remedy to challenge the order
framing charge by filing a revision application. We are shocked to
note the approach adopted by the State Government. What is
suggested by the State Government is that once charge-sheet is
filed, accused cannot do anything except to wait till the charge is
framed and thereafter, can file a revision application to challenge
the order of framing charge.
7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the State submits
that possibly because a remedy of filing revision application
against the order framing charge was available, the High Court
has dismissed the petition. We do not see any such reason
forthcoming from the impugned order as the petition is dismissed
as infructuous without mentioning how it has become infructuous.
8. It is true that the appellants can apply for discharge. However,
the scope of application for discharge is completely different from
the scope of a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings.
While arguing a case for discharge, the appellants will not be in a
position to rely upon any document which is not the part of
charge sheet. The ground of abuse of process of law will not be
available while arguing discharge application. However, in a
petition for quashing either under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, a wider challenge is available including a
challenge on the ground of abuse of process of law. In such
proceedings, the accused can rely upon documents which are not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 18 of 33
the part of the charge-sheet. Therefore, we reject the submission
made by learned counsel appearing for the State. Though the
submissions made on behalf of the State have no basis, we have
dealt with the same elaborately to ensure that the same are not
urged in a similar case. ”
(emphasis supplied)
39. The present petition seeking quashing of the subject FIR was
filed in the year 2022, and the charge sheet was filed during the
pendency thereof. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to
examine the FIR and the charge-sheet conjointly to ascertain whether,
even if the allegations and material contained therein are accepted as
true in their entirety and without rebuttal, they disclose the
commission of any offence or whether the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
40. Adverting to the merits of the case, the allegations against the
Petitioner Company pertain to alleged misrepresentations made by the
Petitioner Company regarding its association and collaboration with
M/s The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, USA, representations
regarding the quality and standards of the lubricants supplied by it,
and the alleged inducement of the Complainant to enter into the
distributorship arrangement and place orders for products on the basis
of such representations. The FIR further contains allegations regarding
supply of allegedly defective and inferior quality lubricants, refusal to
compensate or replace the same, and consequent wrongful loss
allegedly caused to the Complainant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 19 of 33
41. The Petitioner Company and its officials have been charge-
sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120-B/34 of
the IPC. In view of the nature of allegations levelled in the FIR and
the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it becomes
pertinent to examine the essential ingredients of the offences
punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the IPC in order to
ascertain whether the allegations and material collected during
investigation prima facie disclose commission of the said offences.
The relevant provisions are extracted hereinbelow:
“ 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy:-
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no
express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a
conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted
such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a
criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
405. Criminal breach of trust:-
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any
dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to
his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes off that
property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode
in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract,
express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of
such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits
“criminal breach of trust”.
406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust: -
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 20 of 33
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property –
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or
destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything
which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted
into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.”
42. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that in order
to constitute an offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC, the
prosecution must prima facie establish entrustment of property or
dominion over property coupled with dishonest misappropriation,
conversion, use or disposal of such property in violation of law.
Similarly, for an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, the
essential ingredients are deception, dishonest or fraudulent inducement
and the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very
inception of the transaction. It is well settled that mere breach of
contract or subsequent failure to fulfil a promise would not by itself
constitute the offence of cheating unless it is shown that the accused
possessed dishonest intention from the very beginning.
43. As regards the first contention, firstly , a perusal of the material
forming part of the Chargesheet itself does not prima facie support the
allegation that the Petitioner Company had illegally represented itself
as “ Goodyear Lubricants ” or had unauthorizedly used the trademarks
of M/s The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Rather, the
Chargesheet itself reflects material demonstrating the existence of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 21 of 33
authorization and trademark license arrangements in favour of the
Petitioner Company.
44. The Petitioner Company produced an Authorization Letter
before the investigating agency, dated 07.02.2022 issued by Goodyear
U.S.A. in favour of the Petitioner Company, which reflected that the
Petitioner had been granted rights to produce, distribute, appoint and
authorize distributors or agents in relation to the licensed products.
The said letter is reproduced hereinbelow:
“To Whom It May Concern:
RE: Authorization Letter for Assurance Intl Limited
This letter is to confirm that Assurance Intl Limited (“Licensee”) is a
licensee of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (“Goodyear”), Akron,
Ohio, USA, pursuant to the agreement dated April 9, 2020 (the
“Agreement”), as amended on February 3, 2022.
As a Goodyear licensee, Licensee has been granted rights to produce,
distribute, appoint and authorize distributors or agents, advertise and
promote, the following category of products bearing Goodyear trademarks:
(i) Engine oil, diesel exhaust fluid, transmission fluid, gear oil, brake oil,
hydraulic oil, shock absorbers oil, grease and anti-freeze for motorbikes,
passenger cars, SUVs, tractors and trucks as well as construction, industrial
and marine equipment;
(ii) Batteries with voltage up to 120 volts for motorbikes, passenger cars,
SUVs, tractors and trucks as well as construction, industrial and marine
equipment; and
(iii) Air filters, oil filters, and fuel filters for motorbikes, passenger cars,
SUVs, tractors and trucks as well as construction, industrial and marine
equipment.
Licensee is authorized to sell Goodyear branded Licenses Products in the
following territories:
The following Asian countries for all categories of Licenses Products:
Austalia, Bhutan, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Loas, Malaysia, Maldives,
Myanmar, New Zealand, Nepal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-
Leste and Vietnam
The following Asian countries subject to the restrictions set forth below:
Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 22 of 33
Licensee acknowledges and agrees that in the countries above it will
o
only market, promote, distribute and sell category (ii) and category
(iii) Licensed Products
Licensee is authorized to sell Goodyear branded Licensed Products until
July, 31, 2025 (unless the Agreement is terminated prior thereto).”
45. The Chargesheet further records that Goodyear India, a
subsidiary of Goodyear U.S.A., informed the investigating agency that
its parent company had granted a trademark license to the Petitioner
Company. The relevant extract of the chargesheet is reproduced herein
below:
“During course of investigation, notices u/s 91 Cr.P.C were issued
to Goodyear India Limited who replied that their company has no
relationship with Assurance Intl. Limited. They further informed
that they were aware that their ultimate parent company i.e. The
Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Company USA has granted a trademark
license to M/S Assurance Intl Ltd.”
46. Further, pursuant to the Order dated 01.06.2023 passed by this
Court, the Petitioner Company furnished a redacted copy of the
Trademark License Agreement dated 09.04.2020 executed between
Goodyear U.S.A. and the Petitioner Company. The relevant clauses of
the said agreement are reproduced hereinbelow:
“ PART 1 Clause 2:
Property
Those trademarks set forth on Annex A
PART 1 Clause 3:
Licensed Products
Engine oil, Diesel Exhaust Fluid. transmission fluid, gear oil,
brake oil, hydraulic oil, shock absorbers oil, grease and anti-freeze
for motorbikes, passenger cars, including light trucks, SUV's as
well as construction and marine equipment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 23 of 33
PART 2 Clause 2.1:-
The Licensor grants to the Licensee, subject to and on the terms of
this Agreement, a limited, revocable right and license to use the
Property on and in connection with the manufacture, promotion
and sale of Licensed Products in the Distribution Channels in the
Territory for the duration of the Term.”
47. A conjoint reading of the above clearly demonstrates that the
Petitioner Company had been granted the right to use the trademarks
of Goodyear U.S.A on and in connection with manufacture, promotion
and sale of its licensed products which include engine oil, diesel
exhaust fluid, gear oil, brake oil etc.
48. The Chargesheet further shows that the Petitioner Company had
supplied an Affidavit dated 23.09.2021 filed by Goodyear U.S.A.
before the Registrar of Trade Marks, wherein Goodyear U.S.A. itself
stated that it was selling lubricants and engine oil under the mark
“ Goodyear ” in collaboration with the Petitioner Company.
Significantly, the Chargesheet further reflects that the Trademark
Registry, vide its reply dated 10.08.2024, verified the factum of the
trademark license granted by Goodyear U.S.A. in favour of the
Petitioner Company. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“During investigation, a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC was sent to the office
of Trade Mark Registry, Intellectual property office for verifYing
the Trade Mark· application, No. 4482679 vide which the accused
company has claimed that Good Year Tyre & Rubber Company
USA has tie up with Assurance Inti Ltd. as per reply of the same, it
is found that at page number 9 of the above Trademark application
it is mentioned that "In India the company is selling lubricants and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 24 of 33
engine oils under the mark/name GOODYEAR in collaboration
with Assurance International Limited, a key player in the lubricants
industry since December 01, 2020. Assurance International
Limited is a leading manufacturing and marketing company with
presence world-over and was established four decades ago with the
primary focus on bringing to market specially lubricants,
motorbike oils, passenger car engine oils, transmission oils,
hydraulic oils, pump set oils and CNG oil, lubricant products under
the mark/name GOODYEAR caters to all kind of vehicles including
commercial and passenger vehicles and two wheelers." The above
information clarifies only about 'agreement for using the name of
Goodyear' as brand name, but not about the quality of the products
being manufactured by the accused.”
49. Thus, the material forming part of the Chargesheet indicates
that the Petitioner Company had authorization to use the trademarks
and branding associated with Goodyear U.S.A. in connection with
manufacture, promotion and sale of lubricants within India. In view
thereof, the allegation that the Petitioner Company had falsely
portrayed itself as associated with Goodyear U.S.A. or had illegally
used the Goodyear trademark does not appear to sustain from the
material placed on record.
50. Secondly , it has been alleged that the Petitioner Company
falsely represented its products to be genuine lubricants of high
international quality and API standards, whereas the Complainant and
its customers allegedly received inferior and defective products. It was
alleged that despite being aware of the alleged defects and complaints
regarding product quality, the Petitioner Company continued
supplying the products and induced the Complainant to place
substantial orders on the basis of such representations.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 25 of 33
51. A perusal of the charge sheet shows that samples of the
lubricant products supplied by the Petitioner Company were seized by
the investigating agency and examined by Shri Ram Laboratory,
Noida. The results of the said examination as recorded in the charge
sheet are reproduced hereinbelow:
“During the course of investigation, the samples of the lubricants
and oil (allegedly supplied by the alleged persons) provided by the
complainant, were taken into police possession through seizure
memo and on 15/09/2023, the same were sent to Shri Ram
Laboratory. Sector-62, Noida, UP for examination. In this regard,
the test report of the samples has been received from the above
Laboratory. As per the test report, the sample of all alleged
products were duly analysed by the authorised expert of above-
mentioned Lab. On scrutiny of test report, samples are confirmed
that it is synthetic based and according to API. On further
clarification it has been submitted by the LAB that samples sent to
the laboratory have fulfilled the specifications of IS standard but
the authorised expert stated that to fulfil the standard specification
as laid down by API, the manufacturer has to provide the API
guidelines and then only the sample products can be analysed
accordingly but the same has not been provided by the accused
company despite specific directions. The remarks provided are
based solely on the result obtained from testing as per IS
standard.”
52. It is evident from the above that the laboratory report reflects
that the samples conformed to the applicable Indian Standards and
were found to be synthetic-based products. Further, in response to
queries raised by the investigating agency regarding allegations that
the products were mixed with water and reused substances, the
laboratory specifically opined that the water content was within the
permissible limits prescribed under the relevant IS Standards and that
there exists no parameter to determine whether the samples were
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 26 of 33
“ reused ” products. Insofar as the allegation regarding API standards is
concerned, while the laboratory did not render any conclusive finding
regarding API compliance, the material collected during investigation
nevertheless reflects that the products examined were found
conforming to the applicable Indian Standards. Prima facie , therefore,
the material on record does not indicate that the products supplied by
the Petitioner Company were spurious or inherently substandard so as
to disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention from the inception of the
transaction, which is a necessary ingredient for the offence punishable
under Section 420 of the IPC.
53. Further, the Petitioner Company has clarified that, as evident
from its Welcome E-mail dated 09.01.2021, that they merely claimed
that their products would perform as per API specifications and never
claimed their products to be API Certified. The relevant extract of the
said letter is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Assurance Intl Limited is consistently improving the performance
of all products through the development of a proprietary type of
synthetic based oil technology combined with innovative additive
packages. Using the most advanced formulation and state of the art
technology; the products are fully tested and· proven both in
laboratory and fields. All international standards are being
followed during the manufacturing process and the laboratory
checks made on all products before they leave the blending plant.
All products are guaranteed to perform as per the specifications of
API (American Petroleum Institute).”
54. Be that as it may, whether the products strictly conformed to
particular API specifications or international standards, despite
conforming to Indian Standards, would essentially give rise to issues
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 27 of 33
relating to quality assurance, contractual representations and
commercial warranties arising out of the distributorship arrangement
between the parties. Prima facie , such disputes would predominantly
fall within the realm of civil and commercial adjudication rather than
constituting criminal offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust.
55. Significantly, the material placed on record reflects that the
Respondent No. 2 continued placing orders with the Petitioner
Company, on a monthly basis, from January 2021 till February 2022
and during this period approximately 1,12,206 litres of lubricants were
supplied by the Petitioner Company. Evidently, had the products been
consistently inferior or defective in the manner alleged, the continued
placement of substantial orders over such an extended period would
appear improbable.
56. Thirdly , it has been alleged that despite repeated requests, the
Petitioner Company neither refunded the alleged advance money nor
replaced the products supplied, and is further liable towards various
amounts claimed by the Complainant including credit note dues, dead
stock and market dues allegedly arising on account of inferior quality
products.
57. The aforesaid allegations primarily pertain to monetary and
contractual disputes arising out of the distributorship arrangement
between the parties. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that while
terminating the distributorship vide email dated 26.03.2022, the
Petitioner Company itself offered to undertake full and final
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 28 of 33
settlement after verification of claims and schemes from the market. It
is further noteworthy that the Chargesheet itself records that in relation
to the allegations regarding dead stock and market dues, the
Complainant did not permit verification of the alleged dead stock by
opening the cartons and further failed to furnish particulars of
customers who allegedly refused payment on account of inferior
quality products. Be that as it may, this Court finds merit in the
contention raised by the Petitioner that, if at all, any outstanding
amount remained payable, by either parties, the same would be related
to reconciliation/settlement of accounts and any such commercial
disagreements, may at best be the basis for instituting a suit for
recovery/appropriate civil remedy, but cannot constitute
misappropriation so as to attract Section 406 of the IPC.
58. Fourthly , it has been alleged that though the Petitioner
Company represented that its products, raw materials and technical
support were sourced from or backed by Goodyear USA, there exist
no corresponding foreign remittances or transactions in the financial
records of the Petitioner Company. The Complainant further alleged
that the initial batches of products supplied by the Petitioner Company
did not disclose the place of manufacture and carried the flag of the
United States of America, thereby creating an impression that the
products were manufactured in the USA under the “ Goodyear ” brand,
whereas the subsequent batches disclosed that the products were
manufactured in India by the Petitioner Company.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 29 of 33
59. It is pertinent to note that the Welcome E-mail dated 09.01.2021
issued by the Petitioner Company to the complainant clearly records
that the Petitioner Company informed the complainant that its
lubricant products would be manufactured in India at two facilities, in
Mumbai and Haryana. The relevant extract of the said email is
reproduced herein below:
“The lubricant products would be manufactured at two facilities:
Mumbai (Maharashtra) and the other one is in Haryana. While
Goodyear would provide all products and development & support
and all products approved by Goodyear USA. Assurance
International would look after manufacturing, marketing, and
distribution. It will also provide after-sales assistance to
consumers. The company's lubricant product portfolio would cater
to all kinds of vehicles, including commercial and passenger
vehicles and two-wheelers.”
60. Even otherwise, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
aforesaid allegations, even if accepted at face value, primarily pertain
to representations and commercial assurances made in the course of a
distributorship arrangement. Whether the products were imported,
technically supported or developed in collaboration with Goodyear
USA, and whether the packaging or branding created a particular
commercial impression, are matters which at best give rise to
contractual or civil disputes and do not, by themselves, disclose the
essential ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 406 or 420
of the IPC, in absence of material indicating dishonest inducement or
fraudulent intention from the inception.
61. It has also been brought to the notice of this court, that the
Complainant repeatedly approached multiple authorities and police
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 30 of 33
stations in Delhi and Haryana on the very same set of allegations,
including the office of the Chief Minister, Haryana, Police Station
Sadar Thana, Gurugram and Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin,
Delhi. Despite the complaints already being pending before the
Gurugram Police and despite the complaint filed before Police Station
Hazarat Nizamuddin having been transferred by the DCP, South-East
Delhi to Police Station Sadar Thana, Gurugram vide communication
dated 22.06.2022, the present FIR thereafter came to be registered at
Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin on the same allegations. It is also
relevant to note that the Complainant withdrew its complaint vide
letter dated 11.10.2022 only after the registration of the present FIR.
The repeated and parallel institution of proceedings before multiple
fora on the same cause of action is nothing but a clear attempt at
forum shopping and reflects a deliberate design to circumvent due
process. The same has resulted in grave prejudice and undue
harassment to the Petitioner, compelling it to face multiple
proceedings arising out of identical allegations. Such conduct squarely
amounts to an abuse of the process of law, as it seeks to misuse the
criminal justice mechanism for collateral purposes, thereby warranting
interference by this Court to prevent continuation of such oppressive
and vexatious proceedings.
62. As regards the last limb of contention, it is necessary to note
that the offense of Criminal Conspiracy, punishable under Section
120B of the IPC, requires an agreement between two or more persons
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 31 of 33
to commit an illegal act. It is a substantive offense in itself, but it
hinges on the existence of a conspiracy to commit a crime. As
established in the preceding analysis, the essential ingredients for the
substantive offences of Cheating (Section 420) and Criminal Breach
of Trust (Section 406) are not fulfilled in this case. The dispute
between the parties is fundamentally commercial and civil in nature,
stemming from a breach of contractual terms rather than a criminal
act. Since no prima facie criminal offense has been made out, the
charge of conspiring to commit such offenses cannot be sustained.
Even otherwise, no specific or overt act or agreement to commit an
offence has been attributed to any of the officials of the Petitioner
Company and have merely been looped in owing to the positions held
by them. Thus, the charge under 120B of the IPC cannot be sustained.
63. Considering the aforesaid aspects, in the opinion of this Court,
the material collected during the investigation itself belies the case of
the Complainant and no commission of an offence, let alone “ grave
suspicion ”, is disclosed against the Petitioner Company or its officials
to attract Sections 406/420/120-B/34 of the IPC. The disputes, as
reflected from the record and analysed above, arise purely out of a
commercial distributorship arrangement involving supply of goods,
pricing, alleged quality issues and settlement of accounts, which at
best give rise to civil and contractual remedies. Perusal of the material,
as discussed above, therefore warrants interference by this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 32 of 33
64. As noted above, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC can look into the FIR, the charge-sheet and
the accompanying material to ascertain whether the basic ingredients
of the alleged offences are made out and whether continuation of
criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law,
and to prevent misuse of criminal law in cases arising out of
predominantly civil disputes.
65. In the circumstances of the present case, continuation of
proceedings against the Petitioner would amount to an abuse of the
process of law. In view of the above, FIR No. 294/2022 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
66. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JULY 01, 2026
vv
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:01.07.2026
16:19:18
CRL.M.C. 5867/2022 Page 33 of 33