Quashing of FIR: Patna High Court Rules Civil Dispute Cannot Be Criminalized

 


Background of the Case

The case arose from a dispute over payments related to a telecommunication tower installed on land owned by the complainant, Ajay Kumar Singh. The petitioners were employees of Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ("the Company"), which had an agreement with the complainant to set up and operate the tower in exchange for a monthly license fee.

The complainant alleged that, besides the agreed rent, he was also supposed to receive an additional sum for working as a caretaker. However, after multiple managerial transitions, the payments stopped, leading him to file a criminal complaint under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Key Allegations by the Complainant

  1. The complainant entered into an agreement with Ascend Telecom to host the tower on his land.
  2. Initially, payments were made regularly, but when the management of the tower shifted to different companies (Perfect Company, Eklavya Company, and later Kumar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.), payments stopped after one year and six months.
  3. The complainant claimed an outstanding amount of ₹85,000 for his caretaker services.
  4. When he demanded the dues, he was allegedly insulted and threatened by the accused persons.
  5. Despite sending a legal notice, the payment was not made.

Petitioners' Defense

  1. The petitioners contended that the Company (Ascend Telecom) was not responsible for the caretaker payments after management was transferred.
  2. The contractual agreement did not recognize the complainant as a permanent caretaker.
  3. The actual dues were to be paid by Kumar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., not Ascend Telecom or its employees.
  4. The petitioners argued that the allegations were civil in nature and did not constitute a criminal offense.
  5. The FIR was maliciously filed as a pressure tactic to recover unpaid amounts.

Court's Findings and Ruling

  1. No criminal offense was made out—the core issue was non-payment of dues, which is a civil matter.
  2. The complainant’s own statements in the FIR and legal documents indicated that Kumar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was responsible for the payments, not Ascend Telecom.
  3. The petitioners had no contractual obligation to pay the complainant for caretaker services.
  4. The criminal case was filed with an ulterior motive to recover dues instead of pursuing a civil remedy.
  5. The court quashed the FIR and the Magistrate’s order directing an investigation.

Legal Precedents Considered

The judgment referenced key Supreme Court rulings, reinforcing the principle that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases. It cited:

  • Bhajan Lal Case (1992) – Laying down criteria for quashing FIRs.
  • Indian Oil Corp. v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) – Cautioning against misuse of criminal law for civil disputes.
  • Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) – Clarifying the elements of cheating under IPC.

Conclusion

The case was dismissed, and the FIR was quashed. The court reaffirmed that criminal law should not be used as a tool for enforcing financial claims. If the complainant sought recovery of dues, he should have pursued a civil suit instead of filing a criminal complaint.

This ruling emphasizes the need to distinguish criminal intent from contractual disputes and prevents misuse of the legal system for personal gains.

पूरा फैसला पढ़ने के लिए यहां क्लिक करें:

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTYjMjIzMiMyMDE3IzEjTg==-R61haxH9CCk=