Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained for purely civil disputes regarding hotel service deficiencies and refund claims.

The petitioner, owner of “M/s Hotel Kingdom” in Swaraj Dweep, sought the quashing of FIR No. 0002/2026 registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The initial complaint by Smt. Priyanka Gupta alleged that the hotel lacked amenities shown online, though the police could neither trace her mobile number nor elicit an email response.

Despite this, the Enquiry Officer included a prior complaint from December 2025 regarding room availability and hygiene.

The police alleged that while the physical structures existed, "poor maintenance" led to a "deteriorated" condition, causing guests to "feel cheated".

A charge sheet was filed during the pendency of the revision.

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent charge sheet disclose a cognizable offence of cheating under Section 318(4) of the BNS or pertains to a purely civil dispute.

2. Whether an FIR can be quashed when the investigation was based on "conjecture and surmise" and failed to establish the identity/source of the alleged misrepresentation.

The court applied Section 318(4) of the BNS regarding cheating, noting that the offence requires a false impression or inducement to be given at the inception.

It relied on the precedent Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which establishes that disputes of a purely civil nature (such as money claims or refunds) cannot be converted into criminal proceedings.

The court also applied the principle that an FIR may be quashed at any stage if it fails to disclose the rudiments of a cognizable offence.

The Court observed that the FIR was fundamentally flawed because the original complainant was untraceable and provided no evidence of the source of the alleged misleading photographs.

The Enquiry Officer’s reliance on "poor maintenance" did not constitute a criminal offence, especially since the structures depicted in the advertisements physically existed, thereby ruling out initial misrepresentation.

The Court found that "feeling cheated" is a subjective perception and not a legal offence.

The Court further noted that the investigation turned into a "roving inquiry" aimed at malingering the petitioner’s business, as the police failed to cite specific instances where the petitioner himself uploaded the photos or refused refunds; rather, evidence showed refunds were actually provided.

Since the dispute over hotel amenities and refunds is inherently civil, criminal machinery could not be invoked.

It held that the FIR was "denuded of any basis whatsoever" and "coloured more by prejudice than facts".

The Court concluded that the petitioner should not be relegated to the stigma of a trial when the proceedings are ex-facie devoid of any criminal ingredients.

All consequential steps premised on the FIR were revoked.