Criminal proceedings cannot be used to recover money in partnership disputes that disclose no offence.

The petitions challenged cross-FIRs registered as Crime Nos. 92 and 93 of 2025, arising from an alleged altercation between the parties and their family members on 23 May 2025.

The complaints alleged, among other things, assault, threats and unlawful assembly; the FIRs invoked various offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The dispute arose against the background of partnership businesses established by the parties and their spouses, and subsequent disagreements concerning the partnerships and monetary transactions.

Petitioner No. 2 in W.P. No. 17916 of 2025 had also instituted a commercial arbitration application.

Interim stays of the proceedings had been granted in both petitions.

1. Whether the allegations in the two FIRs, viewed in the context of the parties’ admitted partnership and monetary disputes, disclosed a basis for continuing the criminal proceedings.

2. Whether the FIRs and proceedings in Crime Nos. 92 and 93 of 2025 should be quashed as an abuse of the criminal process.

The petitions invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the basis for seeking quashing.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which identifies categories of cases in which proceedings may be quashed, including where the allegations do not prima facie disclose an offence or where proceedings are maliciously instituted for an ulterior purpose.

It also referred to V. Ganesan v. State, Paliniswamy Veeraraja v. State of Karnataka and G. Saminathan v. State for the principles that criminal proceedings should not be used to give a criminal colour to essentially civil or business disputes, and that cheating requires dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction.

The Court treated the parties’ partnership and monetary disputes as the context for both the complaints and the counter-complaint, noting that the parties accepted that the petitions arose from those disputes.

It concluded that the criminal law had been set in motion in furtherance of a civil dispute and applied the Bhajan Lal categories concerning allegations that do not disclose offences and proceedings allegedly brought with an ulterior motive.

On that basis, it found continuation of the two criminal proceedings unwarranted.

It clarified that its observations were confined to the petitions under Section 528 of the BNSS and would not govern disputes between the parties pending before other fora.