HEADING: Existence of civil remedy does not bar criminal proceedings if the FIR prima facie discloses criminality.

The Petitioner, a doctor, approached the High Court to quash FIR No. 50 of 2025 registered at Wakad Police Station under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Respondent No. 2, a retired government servant, alleged that the Petitioner induced him to invest ₹1,37,50,000/- with promises of high returns and a 50% partnership in a hospital.

The Petitioner failed to return the money or honor the partnership promise.

The Petitioner contended the dispute was purely civil, involving a partnership deed dated 21.10.2022, and that criminal proceedings were an abuse of process.

Sections 316(2) (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 318(4) (Cheating) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The precedent set by the Supreme Court in S. N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka (2025), which established that there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings if an "overwhelming element of criminality" is present.

Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) to distinguish between disputes that are essentially civil and those that carry a "criminal texture".

The Court examined the FIR and found that it detailed a systematic plan by the Petitioner to defraud the Respondent at the very inception of the transaction, establishing the element of criminality.

Regarding the Petitioner’s reliance on the "Partnership Deed" to label the case as a civil recovery matter, the Court observed that the deed was neither registered nor reflected in the Register of Firms.

The Court characterized this document as a "smokescreen" and a sham created with dishonest intent to facilitate the fraud.

The Court reasoned that while a civil remedy for recovery might exist, the presence of dishonest inducement and misappropriation meant the criminal prosecution was not a mere "cloak" for a civil dispute.

The Court found the petition devoid of merit, dismissed it, and discharged the Rule.

Despite a plea from the State and the Respondent for exemplary costs due to harassment and abuse of process, the Court declined to pass orders as to costs.