Criminal proceedings over the same transaction were quashed after the civil court found no personal liability.

The respondent alleged that Petitioner No. 1 and a business partner purchased Robusta Cherry coffee worth ₹80 lakh in connection with their coffee business and that Petitioner No. 1 issued two cheques from an account held in Petitioner No. 2’s name towards the amount due.

The cheques were dishonoured with the endorsement “Payment Stopped by Drawer”.

After a private complaint, the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC and issued process; the petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

The respondent had also brought two civil suits concerning the transaction.

Those suits were dismissed on 28 January 2026, with the civil court finding that personal liability of the petitioners had not been established; an appeal from that judgment was pending.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 409 and 420 IPC should be quashed where civil suits concerning the same transaction had been dismissed after findings that the petitioners’ personal liability was not established.

2. Whether, in those circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

The petition invoked Section 482 CrPC, under which the High Court may quash criminal proceedings; the judgment also identifies the corresponding Section 528 BNSS in the petition heading.

The complaint alleged offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC.

The Court’s stated basis for relief was that continuation of the criminal case, in light of the civil court’s findings concerning the same transaction and the absence of established personal liability, would constitute an abuse of process.

The judgment cites no precedent or further statutory test.

The Court considered the civil suits to concern the same transaction and the liability said to underlie the cheques.

It noted that, after assessing the evidence, the civil court had found that the coffee was sold to the partnership firm, not to the petitioners in their personal capacities, and that the respondent had failed to establish the petitioners’ individual or joint liability.

Although an appeal was pending, the High Court treated those findings as material to whether the criminal proceedings could continue and concluded that, on the facts before it, continuation of the prosecution for Sections 409 and 420 IPC would be an abuse of process.