High Court cannot quash proceedings under Section 482 where FIR discloses cognizable offences requiring trial.

Respondent No. 2 awarded a sub-contract for road construction to the petitioner and co-accused Purushottam Madani and allegedly paid an advance of ₹50 lakh. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co-accused neither commenced the work nor returned the advance amount, resulting in registration of Crime No. 273/2018 at Police Station Ratibad, Bhopal, for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 506, 507 read with Section 120-B of the IPC

The petitioner claimed that he had no role in the agreement, that he was implicated merely because he was the nephew of the co-accused, and that the dispute was essentially contractual and civil in nature

Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed against the petitioner

The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings

Whether the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclosed the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings

Whether the alleged contractual dispute was purely civil in nature and therefore warranted quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court

Whether the High Court could examine the petitioner’s defence, assess the reliability of the prosecution material, or undertake appreciation of evidence at the stage of a petition under Section 482 CrPC

The Court applied the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, read with Section 528 BNSS, for preventing abuse of process and securing the ends of justice

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, which establish that FIRs should ordinarily not be quashed where they disclose a cognizable offence; quashing is an exceptional remedy, and the Court should not assess the reliability or genuineness of allegations or conduct a detailed evidentiary inquiry at that stage

Under Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the availability of a civil remedy does not bar criminal proceedings where the allegations also disclose a criminal offence

M/s Technofab Engineering Ltd. v. Bengal Mills Stores Supply Co., 2016 Criminal L.R. 887, recognizes that a contractual dispute may simultaneously constitute a civil wrong and a criminal offence, the relevant test being whether the allegations disclose a criminal offence

The Court also relied on Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 15 SCC 221, against interference with a police investigation where the truth of the allegations requires examination, and Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar, (2019) 13 SCC 350, regarding the limited consideration of defence documents in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC

The Court held that the allegations that the petitioner and co-accused obtained ₹50 lakh as an advance pursuant to a sub-contract, failed to commence the construction work, and did not return the money were sufficient, at the prima facie stage, to disclose the alleged offences

Although the transaction arose from a construction contract and could give rise to civil remedies, that circumstance did not exclude criminal liability where the allegations suggested cheating, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, and related offences

The charge-sheet and other material collected during investigation were found sufficient to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences

The petitioner’s assertions regarding his lack of involvement, delay in lodging the FIR, and the contractual nature of the dispute were treated as matters of evidence and defence, which could not be adjudicated by undertaking an appreciation of evidence in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC

Applying the restrictive principles governing quashing, the Court found that this was not a case in which the FIR was manifestly false, baseless, or incapable of disclosing any offence

The petition seeking quashing of Crime No. 273/2018, the charge-sheet, and all consequential criminal proceedings was dismissed as meritless

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the quashing petition and would not influence the trial court, which was directed to decide the matter independently in accordance with law