TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The present appeals are directed against the common order passed by the High Court of Orissa in Crl.M.C Nos. 961 and 931 of 2021 rejecting the appellant's prayer under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 'Cr.P.C.' for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 113 of 2020 registered at Police Station Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar and also the proceedings arising out of order dated 09.03.2021 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar 'SDJM' under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing registration of similar FIR. 3. The facts leading to FIR No. 113 of 2020 and the order passed by the SDJM under Section 156(3) are that the complainant/respondent no. 2 was entrusted by the appellantaccused to execute the wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he violated the terms and conditions of the contract. In the later part of the complaint, it is alleged that the appellant is required to pay Rs. 25 lakhs from the date of issuance of notice for settlement of account. However, this amount was not paid and instead the complainant was threatened. 4. It is the case of the appellant that the complainant failed to complete the work within the stipulated time due to which a show cause notice was issued to the complainant on 06.11.2017 seeking response for his failure to complete the work. In its letter dated 23.11.2017 the complainant/respondent no. 2 accepted its failure to perform the said projects work and withdrew itself from the contract. The complainant/respondent requested the appellant t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t submits that the entire dispute is of a civil nature which has been given colour of an offence of cheating and forgery without their being any fact constituting such offence. It is also argued that the second FIR on identical facts is impermissible in view of the law laid down in T.T. Anthony vs. Sate of Kerela (2001) 6 SCC 181. It is also argued that M/s. PGL issued two cheques of Rs. 10 lakhs each in favour of the appellant to discharge its liability. However, both the cheques were dishonoured for which the appellant has preferred a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is strenuously urged that the entire issue concerns breach of contract and failure of the complainant to perform its part of the contract. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vities have stopped due to his financial condition on account of imposition of GST and other hindrances. It is also admitted therein that its financial position is not permitting to continue the work and requested to withdraw from the contract without any risk and cost and allow to complete the balance work through its financial partner M/s. PGL. The complainant also agreed in its letter that the account shall be settled by involving M/s PGL who has agreed to perform the balance work. M/s. PGL also requested to return the security cheques which it has given to the appellant at the time of signing of the work order. Thus, the complainant having himself admitted its inability to perform the work and requesting to settle the account as early a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court." 14. In Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 293, it was held thus: "13. It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an ....