Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mangesh Ulhasrao Zambre vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:17491) on 15 April, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2026:RJ-JD:17491]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 736/2025
Mangesh Ulhasrao Zambre S/o Sh. Ulhasrao Martandrao Zambre,
Aged About 40 Years, R/o Khadki Takali, Post Sukoda, Taluka-
Akota, District Akola (Maharashtra) Presently Working As
Director Varhad Grains Agriculture Producer Company Ltd. Agar,
Tehsil And District Akola (Maharashtra)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Rakesh Joshi S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Joshi, R/o
Parbatnagar Thermal Colony, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. CS Rathore, Adv.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
15/04/2026
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS
has been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioner with the
prayer to quash the FIR No.309/2024, registered at Police Station
Rajiasar, District Sriganganagar for offences punishable under
Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC and all consequential
proceedings arising out of it.
2. Brief facts in nutshell are that the complainant-respondent
No.2, employed as a Manager with Maa Parvati Transport
Company, which is engaged in the business of transportation of
goods, filed a complaint under Section 175(4) of the BNSS before
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17491] (2 of 13) [CRLMP-736/2025]
the Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, alleging
inter alia that in the year 2019, he came into contact with the
accused-petitioner, who is working as a Manager in Varhad Grains
Agriculture Producer Company Ltd. along with co-accused Jitesh
Nalak. An agreement dated 19.11.2019 was executed between the
complainant’s company and petitioner’s company for the
transportation of gypsum @ Rs. 2,750/- per ton. In pursuance of
the said agreement, the complainant’s company transported a
total of 804 tons of gypsum during the period from 12.11.2019 to
06.12.2019, amounting to Rs. 22,11,000/-. Out of the said
amount, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid on 20.11.2019 while
the remaining amount of Rs. 17,11,000/- remained outstanding.
The complainant kept on demanding the outstanding amount but
but the accused did not make the payment on one pretext or the
other and always gave false assurances and lastly, refused to pay
the outstanding amount. It was thus, alleged that the accused
persons had dishonestly induced the complainant and thereby
committed offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Upon
consideration of the complaint, the learned trial Court sent the
complaint to Police Station Rajiasar, District Sriganganagar for
investigation, pursuant to which FIR No.309/2024 came to be
registered against the accused-petitioner and co-accused Jitesh
Nalak for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120B
of the IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
impugned FIR is based upon false and fabricated facts. He submits
that essentially, there is a civil dispute between the parties arising
out of business transactions. However, in order to create pressure
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17491] (3 of 13) [CRLMP-736/2025]
and take undue advantage in such dispute, the
respondent/complainant has intentionally given it a colour of
criminal conspiracy and thus, the impugned FIR is nothing but an
abuse of process of law. Counsel submits that both petitioner and
complainant are engaged in the business of transportation of
agricultural goods. In the year 2019, an agreement was executed
between the parties for transportation of gypsum @ Rs. 2,750/-
per ton. It is further submitted that, in pursuance of the said
agreement, 804 tons of gypsum, amounting to Rs. 22,11,000/-
were transported by the complainant to the petitioner’s company,
out of which a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner’s
company. Counsel submits that thereafter, certain disputes arose
between the parties with regard to payment of the remaining
amount of Rs. 17,11,000/- and in order to settle the said dispute,
the complainant/respondent has filed the impugned FIR, which is
bad in the eyes of law. It is also contended that the impugned FIR
has been lodged after an inordinate delay of more than five years,
without there being any reasonable or plausible explanation for
such delay.
4. Learned counsel further submits that even if the allegations
in the FIR are taken at their face value, no criminal offence is
made out against the petitioner and the co-accused. The dispute
between the parties arises out of an agreement executed for
transportation of goods on certain terms and conditions. The
so-called non-payment of the outstanding amount, owing to
subsequent disputes between the parties, at best gives rise to a
civil liability and does not attract any criminal culpability. Counsel
thus, prays that the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17491] (4 of 13) [CRLMP-736/2025]
impugned FIR be quashed. It is further contended that the
allegations levelled in the FIR at best constitute a breach of
contract, and the initiation of criminal proceedings in such
circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Counsel places reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i). Sachin Garg versus State of U.P. and Anr., reported in
(2024) 11 SCC 687.
(ii). Paramjeet Batra versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors.,
reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673.
(iii).Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. versus State of Bihar & Anr.,
reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751.
(iv).Dalip Kaur & Ors. versus Jagnar Singh & Anr., reported in
(2009) 14 SCC 696.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 have vehemently and
fervently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner. It is submitted that in terms of the agreement, the
complainant delivered 804 tons of gypsum, amounting to
Rs. 22,11,000/- to the petitioner however, the petitioner paid only
Rs.5,00,000/- towards the said amount. Despite repeated
reminders, the petitioner failed to pay the outstanding balance,
compelling the complainant to lodge the impugned FIR. It is
submitted that the petitioner had no intention, from the very
inception, to make payment of the due amount and has
deliberately withheld the same. In response to the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is
purely civil in nature and that the criminal proceedings are not
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17491] (5 of 13) [CRLMP-736/2025]
maintainable, it is submitted that even in disputes arising out of
contractual obligations, if there exists an element of mens rea and
breach of trust, the same may give rise to criminal liability. It is
thus, contended that merely because the dispute also has civil
aspects, the criminality involved therein cannot be disregarded.
6. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
repeatedly cautioned that the inherent powers under Section 528
of the BNSS (Corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) should
be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases. Lastly, it is submitted that if this misc.
petition is accepted and the proceedings of the impugned FIR are
quashed, then, such a course would result in miscarriage of justice
and would encourage the accused in repeating the crime. They
have placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i). Google India Private Ltd. versus Visaka Industries,
reported in AIR 2020 SC 350.
(ii). Dr. Lakshman versus State of Karnataka & Ors., reported
in (2019) 9 SCC 677.
(iii).Rajesh Bajaj versus State NCT of Delhi & Ors., reported in
(1999) 3 SCC 259.
(iv).Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & Anr. versus State of
Andra Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2007) 13 SCC 165.
7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
bar and have gone through the material available on record.
8. It is well settled law that criminal proceedings cannot be
resorted to for the purpose of resolving civil disputes or for
recovery of money. In simple terms, a breach of contract
constitutes an infringement of a private right, which is ordinarily
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17491] (6 of 13) [CRLMP-736/2025]
remediable under civil law, such as by instituting proceedings for
recovery of money. However, for such a dispute to attract criminal
liability, there must be evidence indicating that the accused had no
intention to fulfill the promise from the very inception of the
agreement and, with such dishonest intention, persuaded the
other party to believe the promise. Hence, where the breach is
due to mere non-fulfillment of the contract without any fraud or
deceitful intentions during the initial stages of signing the
contract, the dispute remains civil in nature and does not warrant
initiation of criminal proceedings.
9. A careful reading of the complaint, the gist of which, this
Court has extracted above, would show that none of the
ingredients of any of the offences complained against the
petitioner are made out. Even if all the averments contained in the
FIR are taken to be true, they do not make out any of the offences
alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, I am unable to
understand how an FIR was registered and offences have been
found proved. When FIR itself disclosed nothing more than
business relations, which broke, it is not possible for respondent
No.2 to enlarge the scope of his complaint by merely adding the
language used in the text of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of
the FIR would indicate that there were business transactions
between the parties. In terms of agreement, the complainant
delivered 804 tons of gypsum, amounting to Rs. 22,11,000/- to
the petitioner, however, the petitioner paid only Rs.5,00,000/- and
as per the allegations of the FIR, despite repeated reminders, the
petitioner did not make payment of outstanding balance,
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17491] (7 of 13) [CRLMP-736/2025]
compelling the complainant to lodge the impugned FIR. Thus, it is
clear that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature
but in order to attract criminal liability and for initiation of criminal
proceedings against the petitioner, language used in the text of
Indian Penal Code, has been added in the FIR.
10. This Court finds that no offence is made out and the
continuation of further proceedings based on the FIR against the
petitioner and/or the co-accused would undoubtedly amount to an
abuse of the process of law. It is well settled law that where the
foundational allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence,
permitting criminal proceedings to continue would defeat the very
purpose of instituting such a case and would result in injustice and
harassment to the accused.
11. In Dalip Kaur & Ors. versus Jagnar Singh & Anr.,
reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
considered the earlier cases regarding scope and ambit of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and concluded as follows:-
“10. The High Court, therefore, should have posed
a question as to whether any act of inducement on
the part of the appellant has been raised by the
second respondent and whether the appellant had
an intention to cheat him from the very inception.
If the dispute between the parties was essentially a
civil dispute resulting from a breach of contract on
the part of the appellants by non-refunding the
amount of advance the same would not constitute
an offence of cheating. Similar is the legal position
in respect of an offence of criminal breach of trust
having regard to its definition contained in Section(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17491] (8 of 13) [CRLMP-736/2025]405 of the Indian Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v.
State of M.P. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 11).
11. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that
the High Court would exercise its inherent
jurisdiction only when one or the other propositions
of law, as laid down in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta
and Ors., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 516, is
attracted, which are as under:
“(1) The High Court ordinarily would not
exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a
criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First
Information Report unless the allegations
contained therein, even if given face value
and taken to be correct in their entirety,
disclosed no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and
except in very exceptional circumstances,
would not look to any document relied upon
by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very
sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR
disclose commission of an offence, the Court
shall not go beyond the same and pass an
order in favour of the accused to hold
absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute,
the same by itself may not be a ground to
hold that the criminal proceedings should not
be allowed to continue.”
12. Yet again, in Hira Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P.
and Ors., reported in (2009) 11 SCC 89, this Court
held:
“12. The parameters of interference with a
criminal proceeding by the High Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code are well known. One of the(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17491] (9 of 13) [CRLMP-736/2025]grounds on which such interference is
permissible is that the allegations contained
in the complaint petition even if given face
value and taken to be correct in their
entirety, commission of an offence is not
disclosed. The High Court may also interfere
where the action on the part of the
complainant is mala fide.” (See also
Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and Ors. v.
State of Punjab and Ors., reported in (2009)
7 SCC 712).”
12. Recently in the case of Sachin Garg versus State of U.P.
and Anr., reported in (2024) 11 SCC 687, Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
“14. Past commercial relationship between the
appellant’s employer and the respondent no.2 is
admitted. It would also be evident from the petition
of complaint the dispute between the parties
centered around the rate at which the assigned
work was to be done. Neither in the petition of
complainant nor in the initial deposition of the two
witnesses (that includes the complainant) the
ingredients of the offence under Section 405 of the
1860 Code surfaced. Such commercial disputes
over variation of rate cannot per se give rise to an
offence under Section 405 of the 1860 Code
without presence of any aggravating factor leading
to the substantiation of its ingredients. We do not
find any material to come to a prima facie finding
that there was dishonest misappropriation or
conversion of any material for the personal use of
the appellant in relation to gas supplying work
done by the respondent no.2. The said work was
done in course of regular commercial transactions.
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17491] (10 of 13) [CRLMP-736/2025]It cannot be said that there was misappropriation
or conversion of the subject property, being
dissolved acetylene gas which was supplied to the
factory for the purpose of battery manufacturing at
EIL. The dispute pertains to the revision of rate per
unit in an ongoing commercial transaction. What
has emerged from the petition of complaint and the
initial deposition made in support thereof that the
accused-appellant wanted a rate variation and the
entire dispute arose out of such stand of the
appellant. On the basis of these materials, it cannot
be said that there was evidence for commission of
offence under Section 405/406. The High Court
also did not apply the test formulated in the case of
Dalip Kaur (supra). We have narrated the relevant
passage from that decision earlier.”
13. While expressing similar view, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Paramjeet Batra versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors.,
reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 has held as under:-
“7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious.
This power is to be used sparingly and only for
the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of
any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or
not depends upon the nature of facts alleged
therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal
offence are present or not has to be judged by the
High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions
may also have a criminal texture. But the High
Court must see whether a dispute which is
essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil
remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17491] (11 of 13) [CRLMP-736/2025]happened in this case, the High Court should not
hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent
abuse of process of Court.
8. As we have already noted, here the dispute is
essentially about the profit of the hotel business
and its ownership. The pending civil suit will take
care of all those issues. The allegation that forged
and fabricated documents are used by the
appellant can also be dealt with in the said suit.
Respondent 2’s attempt to file similar complaint
against the appellant having failed, he has filed the
present complaint. The appellant has been
acquitted in another case filed by respondent 2
against him alleging offence under Section 406 of
the IPC. Possession of the shop in question has
also been handed over by the appellant to
respondent 2. In such a situation, in our opinion,
continuation of the pending criminal proceedings
would be abuse of the process of law. The High
Court was wrong in holding otherwise.”
14. Section 528 of the BNSS plays a vital role in ensuring no civil
cases are turned into criminal cases. Inherent power of the High
Courts allow them to quash any such cases which have been
initiated due to mala fide incidents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the famous case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Bhajan Lal
& Anr., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, stated that the
case should be quashed “where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17491] (12 of 13) [CRLMP-736/2025]
15. This Court is cognizant of the fact that the co-accused,
against whom criminal proceedings are pending, has not
separately approached and sought any relief from this Court but
this Court cannot overlook the fact that the allegations levelled in
the FIR are identical against both the petitioner and the
co-accused, and that the facts of the case are interdependent.
Therefore, since no offence is made out even on a prima facie
consideration of the FIR, this Court holds that the co-accused is
equally entitled to the relief granted to the petitioner,
notwithstanding the fact that he has not approached this Court.
This proposition is bolstered by the long held legal doctrine
established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which recognizes that
a Court has the power, in the interest of justice, to extend the
benefit of its judgment to similarly situated persons, even if they
are not before the Court. It is evident that a failure to grant such
relief would result in a grave anomaly and injustice, particularly
where the very foundation of the proceedings is found to be
untenable. Earlier, this Court has already decided this issue in the
case of Sanyukt Shekhari Vs. State of Rajasthan [2026:RJ-
JD:16370] while relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi
versus State of Gujarat, reported in (2023) 9 SCC 164.
16. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions, this Court
deems it a fit case for exercising powers under Section 528 of the
BNSS (Corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) for quashing
the impugned FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising
out of it against the petitioner, as well as the co-accused Jitesh
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17491] (13 of 13) [CRLMP-736/2025]
Nalak, though he is not before this Court but his case stands on
same footing as that of the petitioner.
17. Accordingly, the impugned FIR No.309/2024 registered at
Police Station Rajiasar, District Sriganganagar for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC and all
consequential proceedings arising out of it are hereby quashed
against the petitioner as well as co-accused, Jitesh Nalak.
18. Needless to observe here that the respondent/complainant
would be free to adopt civil proceedings against the petitioner and
co-accused Jitesh Nalak for recovery of outstanding amount, as
alleged in the impugned FIR.
19. The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed accordingly.
20. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
58-Manoj Solanki/-
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 09:44:02 AM)
(Downloaded on 22/04/2026 at 08:32:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)