A civil remedy does not bar criminal proceedings where allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence.

The complainant, Govinda Traders, alleged that it paid ₹55 lakh to Elephant Works Private Limited on behalf of Squaro Exim Private Limited under an arrangement for obtaining a letter of credit (LC) for wheat exports to Bangladesh.

The LC allegedly supplied was duplicate, and the amount was not refunded despite demand.

An FIR was registered at Police Station Bemetara on 15 March 2023, followed by a charge-sheet dated 26 May 2023, alleging offences under Sections 406, 415 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, contending that the dispute was civil and that the cheques provided as security were the subject of separate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

He had previously filed a quashing petition, which was dismissed with costs.

Whether the FIR and charge-sheet should be quashed on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature and the petitioner had raised a defence concerning security cheques.

Whether the allegations and material collected disclosed a sufficient basis for the criminal proceedings to continue.

Section 528 of the BNSS confers inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 362, the Court held that a High Court exercising inherent jurisdiction must not assess disputed defence material or conduct a mini-trial at the quashing stage; it should interfere only where the proceedings lack legal foundation, are perverse, or may result in failure of justice.

The mere availability of a civil remedy does not bar criminal proceedings where the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence.

The Court considered the alleged receipt of ₹55 lakh for arranging the LC and the allegation that the LC was duplicate and the amount was not refunded.

It declined to determine the petitioner’s defence about the security cheques or to treat the dispute as exclusively civil, applying the rule that such matters should not be resolved through a mini-trial at the quashing stage.

It also noted the charge-sheet and the passage of more than three years without, in its view, the default being made good.

The order records that counsel did not dispute that a substantial amount had been returned, but also states that the complainant remained deprived of the dues; it does not reconcile those statements.

It directed the trial court to endeavour to conclude the trial within six months of receiving the order and to proceed in accordance with law if the petitioner sought to delay or avoid the proceedings.

No additional costs were imposed, having regard to the earlier costs order.