Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 19 November, 2025
th
Pronounced on: 12 January, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 1146/2017, CRL.M.A. 4730/2017 (stay)
1. SHRI AMIT JAIN
S/O LATE SHRI HANS KUMAR JAIN
R/O BQ-58, THIRD FLOOR,
SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI
2. SHRI NIMIT JAIN
S/O LATE SHRI HANS KUMAR JAIN
R/O BQ-58, THIRD FLOOR,
SHALIMAR BAGH, NEW DELHI
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Fanish K Jain, Mr. Shri Harsh,
Mr. Abhishek Shokeen, Advocates.
versus
M/S. MURTI UDYOG LIMITED
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
REGD. OFFICE AT 10133-36,
MODEL BASTI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
EAST PARK ROAD,
OPP.; FILMISTAN CINEMA, DELHI-110006
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) on behalf of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 1 of 13
Petitioners seeking quashing of the summoning Order dated 29.01.2015,
whereby Ld. MM summoned Petitioner No.1/Sh. Amit Jain for offences
under Sections 420/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as “IPC”) and Petitioner No.2/Sh. Nimit Jain for the offence
under Section 506 IPC, in CC No. 77/4/14 titled, “Murti Udyog Ltd. vs. Sh.
Amit Jain and Ors.” and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1 was the sole
proprietor of M/s P.P. Metal Industries, operating at 458/466, Shambhu Nath
Compound, Friends Colony Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi. The said
business was closed in December, 2012.
3. Petitioner No.2 is the real brother of Petitioner No.1. Apart from the
Petitioners, one Rajender Prasad Jain was initially arrayed as an accused in
the Complaint and summoned under Section 506 IPC. Subsequently, after
the passing of the summoning Order, the Respondent sought amendment of
the Memo of Parties and the father of the Petitioners was arrayed as an
accused in place of Sh. Rajender Prasad Jain, but he has already expired.
4. The Respondent alleged in the Complaint, that Sh. Rajender Prasad
Jain was a partner in M/s P.P. Metal Industries, and that Petitioner No.1,
through a Broker, contacted the Respondent/M/s Murti Udyog Ltd. on
19.09.2012 for supply of Aluminium wire rods, which were supplied to the
Respondent on 30.09.2012 . An Invoice No. 347 for a sum of Rs.15,23,214/-
was raised. It is further alleged that the goods were transported through M/s
Puran Bharat Road Carrier vide G.R. No. 60987 dated 30.09.2012 by
Truck No. HR-55C-2536 , received on the early morning of 01.10.2012 , and
payment was agreed to be made by 06.10.2012 .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 2 of 13
5. It is further alleged that when the Respondent’s representative
approached Petitioner No.1 on 06.10.2012 for payment, Petitioner No.1
expressed inability due to non-availability of funds and promised payment
on 08.10.2012 . It was claimed that Petitioner No.1 was not available on
08.10.2012, and Petitioner No.2 and the father of the Petitioners informed
the representative that Petitioner No.1 was hospitalized and asked him to
return after two days.
6. It is further alleged that on 11.10.2012 , the premises of the Firm were
found locked and the stock removed. The Respondent claims that upon
contacting Petitioner No.1 telephonically, Petitioner No.2 attended the call
and stated that the Petitioners had suffered losses. It is further alleged that
the Petitioners threatened the Respondent and the broker with dire
consequences and claimed to have links with local goons. The Petitioners
therefore, cheated the Respondent, for which a Complaint dated 28.01.2013
was made to the DCP, Daryaganj , but no action was taken.
7. The Respondent filed a Complaint under Section 200 CrPC before
the Ld. MM. In pre-summoning evidence, the Respondent Company
examined CW-1 , Sh. Naveen Goel , the Director who deposed that all three
accused were partners in M/s P.P. Metal Industries and that the goods were
received by the staff of the accused, though he could not disclose the name
of any such staff.
8. CW-2, Sh. Maya Ram , who was running M/s Puran Bharat Road
Carrier, deposed that delivery was made on 01.10.2012, but he could not tell
the name of the staff who received the goods.
9. It is submitted that solely on the basis of the Complaint and the pre-
summoning evidence of CW-1 and CW-2, the Ld. MM, vide Order dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 3 of 13
29.01.2015 , summoned the Petitioner No.1 for offences under Sections
420/506 IPC , and Petitioner No.2 for the offence under Section 506 IPC .
10. Aggrieved by the summoning Order dated 29.01.2015, the
Petitioners have preferred the present Petition on the grounds that the
summoning Order does not record any reasons, nor does it disclose how a
prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners. Further, the
Complainant/Respondent in his pre-summoning evidence has failed to
disclose the name of the person who allegedly received the goods. In the
absence of the name of the person who received goods in cannot be
presumed that the goods were delivered to the Petitioners. Admittedly, the
goods were not received by the Petitioners.
11. The Respondent has itself alleged, “Shri Amit Jain refused to come on
phone and clearly stated that they had gone in losses and they had no option
to receive the material in this manner so as to recover their losses ” . The
said averment of the Respondent in the Complaint signifies that the
Petitioners have refused to take the delivery of the goods.
12. Furthermore, merely because the price of the goods supplied in a
business transaction is not paid, it would not constitute an offence under
Section 420 IPC.
13. The Respondent/Complainant has till date neither issued any demand
notice to the Petitioners demanding the price of the good allegedly supplied
nor any suit for recovery has been filed against the Petitioners. There is no
averment in the Complaint or in the pre-summoning evidence as to any
dishonest inducement , by the Petitioners to deliver goods, to the
Respondent.It is submitted that the present issue falls within the ambit of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 4 of 13
Civil dispute for recovery and no offence under Section 420 IPC is made
out.
14. It is further asserted that the Respondent is a legal entity and the
Respondent has not explained to whom the alleged threats were extended on
behalf of the Respondent and the person named in the Complaint i.e. Shri
Maharaj Singh to whom the alleged threats have also been extended, has not
been examined as witness. There is no evidence of these alleged threats
extended and hence, summoning under Section 506 IPC is bad in law.
15. Hence, a prayer is made for quashing of CC No. 77/4/14 and the
summoning Order dated 29.01.2015.
16. A compilation of judgments has been filed by the Petitioners, in
support of the contentions made in their Petition. Reliance is placed
on Anukul Singh vs. State of U.P. and Anr. , 2025 INSC 1153 decided on
24.09.2025; M/s Shikhar Chemicals vs. The State of U.P. and Anr. , SLP
(Crl.) No. 11445/2025 decided on 04.08.2025; Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. , (2000) 4 SCC 168; Dalip Kaur
and Ors. vs. Jagnar Singh and Anr. , (2009) 14 SCC 696; Deepak Gaba and
Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. , (2023) 3 SCC 423; Samir Sahay vs. State of
U.P. and Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1285; Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of
Punjab and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 210; Vijay Kumar Ghai and Ors.
vs. State of W.B. and Ors. , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 344.
17. Respondent/M/s Murti Udyog Ltd. in its Reply has vehemently
opposed the allegations made in the present Petition.
18. It is claimed that the Petitioners purchased the goods with a dishonest
intention and falsely represented that payment for the supplied goods would
be made. However, instead of making the payment, the Petitioners retained
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 5 of 13
the goods without payment, despite the transaction not being on a credit
basis. It is a clear case of cheating, as the supply would not have been made
but for the Petitioners’ assurance of payment upon delivery. The Petitioners,
acting with mala fide and deliberate intent, induced the Respondent to
supply the goods on the assurance of immediate payment. Accordingly, the
Respondent has been rightly summoned, and the present petition is not
maintainable at this initial stage.
19. On merits , the averments of the Petitioners are denied. It is submitted
that the Ld. MM was fully competent to take cognizance on the basis of
material available on record and to summon the Petitioners. Furthermore,
the evidence cannot be re-appreciated in the present proceedings at this
stage.
20. Hence, the present Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Submissions heard and record perused.
21. The present petition arises out of a private Complaint filed by the
Respondent/Complainant, M/s Murti Udyog alleging offences under
Sections 420 and 506 IPC in relation to a commercial transaction pertaining
to the supply of aluminium wire rods. It is alleged that Petitioner No.1, Sh.
Amit Jain, the sole proprietor of M/s P.P. Metal Industries, placed an Order
for supply through a broker on 19.09.2012, pursuant to which goods worth
Rs. 15,23,214/- were supplied on 30.09.2012. The Respondent claims that
despite assurances of payment upon delivery, the Petitioners failed to make
payment but retained the goods, and subsequently issued threats when
payment was demanded.
22. The Respondent had also filed an Application under Section 156(3)
CrPC which was dismissed by the Ld. MM vide Order dated 26.06.2013.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 6 of 13
The said Order was challenged by way of a Revision Petition wherein Ld.
ASJ upheld Order of Ld. MM on 05.12.2013. Ld. ASJ observed that the
dispute in the present case is purely for payment of money of the goods
supplied and essentially the matter is civil in nature, which does warrant
registration of FIR.
23. Based on the same allegations, a Complaint under Section 200 CrPC
was filed, leading to the summoning of Petitioner No.1 for offences under
Sections 420/506 IPC and Petitioner No.2/Sh. Nimit Jain under Section 506
IPC vide Order dated 29.01.2015.
24. Thus, the moot question for adjudication is whether the allegations in
the Complaint, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence so as to
justify continuation of the criminal proceedings?
Allegations under Section 420 IPC:
25. A bare perusal of the Complaint dated 28.01.2013 made to the DCP
and Complaint dated 15.02.2013 under Section 156(3) CrPC, on the basis of
which the Respondent filed a Complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the
Ld. MM, reveals that the entire foundation of the allegations rests on non-
payment of amount after delivery of goods.
26. The Complaint itself records that the transaction was negotiated
through one Sh. Maharaj Singh, a broker and goods were supplied against a
duly raised Invoice and payment was agreed to be made after receipt of
goods. There is no allegation whatsoever that at the time of placing the
Order, the Petitioners made any false representation as to their capacity or
intention to pay, nor is any material pleaded to suggest that the Petitioners
never intended to honour the transaction at its inception.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 7 of 13
27. Instead, the Respondent’s own case demonstrates prolonged
negotiations and demands for payment, thereby negating the essential
ingredient of deception at inception , which is a necessary requirement to
constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC.
28. Herein, it is pertinent to refer to the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168, wherein the Apex Court held as
under:
“15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind
that the distinction between mere breach of contract and
the offence of cheating is a fine one . It depends upon the
intention of the accused at the time to inducement which
may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this
subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of
contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown
right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time
when the offence is said to have been committed.
Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the
offence.To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary
to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at
the time of making the promise.From his mere failure to
keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention
right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise
cannot be presumed . ”
29. Further, the Apex court in AM Mohan vs. State Represented by SHO
& Another, 2024 INSC 233 observed as under:
“13. It could be thus seen for attracting the provision of
Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the
ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the
person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to
deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or
destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 8 of 13
capable of being converted into valuable security. In other
words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it
must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:
(i) the deception of any person;
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to
deliver any property to any person; and
(iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of
making the inducement. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
30. The Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Jain vs. State of Gujarat , 2025
INSC 614 decided on 01.05.2025, relied upon Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma, (supra) and AM Mohan, (supra) while dealing with a commercial
transaction involving supply of goods, delayed/non-payment of
consideration and allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust,
reiterated the settled position of law that mere non-payment of sale
consideration, does not ipso facto constitute offences under Sections 406 or
420 IPC, unless dishonest or fraudulent intention is shown to exist at the
inception of the transaction .
31. The Apex Court thus, held that a purely civil dispute cannot be
permitted to be given a criminal colour, and continuation of such
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It is further
noted, “Further, what begs the question is whether such non-payment of the
sale price can be an offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating at the
hands of the second respondent. The answer is clearly no.”
32. Furthermore, in the case of Anukul Singh vs. State of U.P. and Anr ,
2025 INSC 1153 decided on 24.09.2025 , the Apex Court observed that the
matter concerning repayment of loan money and the alleged coercion in
execution of documents, is purely civil in character. In this case, the Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 9 of 13
placed reliance on Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. , (2006)
6 SCC 738 wherein it was held that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to
settle scores in commercial or contractual matters, and that such misuse
amounts to abuse of process.
33. Applying the above principles to the present case , even if the
allegations in the Complaint are accepted at their face value, the dispute
emanates from an admitted commercial transaction involving supply of
goods and alleged failure to make payment thereafter. There is no specific
averment or material indicating dishonest intention on the part of the
Petitioners at the time of placing the Order or at the inception of the
transaction.
34. Here, a reference is also made to the pre-summoning evidence
adduced by the Respondent/Complainant.
35. The pre-summoning evidence of CW-1/Naveen Goel , Director of
Complainant Company admits that this was the first transaction between the
parties and that the goods were received by the staff of the accused, though
he is unable to identify the person who allegedly took delivery. CW-1 does
not depose to any specific false representation or deception practiced at the
time of placing the order. His statement that the payment was not made
“because they had dishonest intention from the starting,” is a mere opinion
unsupported by any fact.
36. Furthermore, the testimony of CW-2/Sh. Maya Ram , the
representative of the Pooran Bharat Road Carriers, the Transporter, further
undermines the prosecution case. CW-2 merely proves the factum of
transportation and delivery of goods and categorically states that he cannot
tell the name of the person who took delivery. He does not depose to any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 10 of 13
role of the Petitioners in receiving the goods dishonestly. At best, his
testimony establishes the completion of delivery pursuant to a commercial
transaction.
37. Thus, a holistic reading of the Complaint, the pre-summoning
evidence and the material placed on record, reflects that the essential
ingredient of deception under Section 420 IPC,is conspicuously absent. The
allegations, at best, discloses a dispute relating to non-payment of sale
consideration arising out of a commercial transaction, for which the remedy
lies in civil law. No prima facie case of Cheating under Section 420 IPC is
made out.
Offence under Section 506 IPC:
38. The allegations relating to criminal intimidation under Section 506
IPC, are equally vague and omnibus. The Complaint does not specify the
exact words used, the date or time of the alleged threats, or the individual
role attributed to each Petitioner. The alleged threats are stated in a
generalized manner. The relevant portion of the Complaint is reproduced as
under:
“7. That in the above said facts & circumstances, the
undersigned had no option then to contact telephonically
but Telephone No.09999943575 of Shri Amit Jain was
attended by Shri Nimit Jain and Shri Amit Jain refused to
come on phone and clearly stated that they have gone in
losses and they had no option to receive the material in this
manner so as to recover their losses.
8. That not only this, he clearly threatened that the
undersigned should not pressurize them to make payment
as such pressurization would doing a serious
consequences. The undersigned continuously made attempt
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 11 of 13
to contact Shri Amit Jain and after 15 days was able to
establish contact with Shri Amit Jain who also repeated the
same threats . In these circumstances the undersigned
contacted the broker Shri Maharaj Singh and along with
him visited to the residence of the accused at 69B, BW
Apartments, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and Sh. Maharaj Singh
also persuaded them to make the payment but all the three
were very rude and threatened that how dare to come to
their house and if they do not leave then they would suffer
dire consequences .
9. That they clearly threatened that they have contacts
with local goons and if they will not leave the place, they
will call such goons to sell all of us right . On these threats,
the undersigned came under shock and surprised that the
aforesaid persons collectively cheated the complainant with
malafide intentions from the very beginning as it was
disclosed by them.”
39. Neither CW-1 nor CW-2 has deposed to any specific threat, words,
conduct, or circumstance amounting to criminal intimidation. It is well
settled that bald assertions of threats, unaccompanied by particulars or
corroboration, do not satisfy the legal threshold for constituting an offence
of criminal intimidation. Even the pre-summoning evidence does not
advance the Respondent’s case.
40. There is thus, no material on record to demonstrate either the requisite
mens rea to threaten or the existence of any threat capable of satisfying the
essential ingredients of Section 506 IPC.
Conclusion:
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, CC No.77/4/14 along with the
summoning Order dated 29.01.2015 and all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom, is hereby quashed .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 12 of 13
42. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
43. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 12, 2026
N
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:12.01.2026
17:30:29
CRL. M.C. 1146/2017 Page 13 of 13