LexSHRICHAND RAJARAM KUKREJA AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 696 : 2025 INSC 794 Shrichand Rajaram Kukreja and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2591 of 2025) 14 May 2025 [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the allegations levelled in the impugned-FIR disclose a dispute of civil in nature; whether the proceedings of the impugned- FIR and the chargesheet filed as a culmination of the investigation is a gross abuse of process of the Court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 – The complainant alleged that he had worked on the project of STP plant and drainage pipe line as a sub-contractor for BUL but only a partial payment against the total work carried out was received by him – In this manner, the complainant claimed to have been cheated – It was alleged that accused submitted false documents claiming to have performed the work whereas it was the complainant who had carried out the said work under the sub-contract – It was also alleged that signatures of engineers employed by complainant were forged – FIR was registered – The appellants herein filed a quashing petition u/s.482 of CrPC – The quashing petition and the criminal writ petition came to be rejected by the High Court – Correctness: Held: The complainant came out with an admitted case in his complaint that he had received a part payment to the tune of Rs. 3,68,15,612/- from the appellants, towards the work which was carried out in furtherance of the sub-contracts awarded initially through the sub-contractor, namely SWD Infra, and thereafter directly to the complainant’s company – Apparently thus, the admitted facts as available on record reveal that the complainant’s claim is for reimbursement of the remaining amount claimed by him towards the works executed in furtherance of a contract – The allegations, made in the complaint, present a dispute which is purely commercial and civil in nature – It seems that the complainant has * Author [2025] 5 S.C.R. 697 Shrichand Rajaram Kukreja and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. contrived to somehow or the other, involve the police machinery to act as recovery agents on his behalf – The complaint, on the face of record, did not disclose any offence whatsoever and no FIR should have been registered based thereupon – Ex facie, the allegations of forging the signatures of the Engineers, employed by the complainant, are not substantiated from the investigation conducted in the case – This Court is of the view that allowing the proceedings of the impugned-FIR and the chargesheet filed as a culmination of the investigation, would be nothing short of a gross abuse of process of the Court – Thus, the impugned order dated 08.10.2018, passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. [Paras 18, 20, 21] Case Law Cited Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal [2007] 10 SCR 847 : (2007) 12 SCC 1 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. List of Keywords Quashing of FIR; Cheating; Forgery; Civil dispute; False documents; Abuse of process of the Court; Part-payment; Forging of signatures. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2591 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CRLA No. 6539 of 2015 With Criminal Appeal No. 2592 of 2025 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: K Parameshwar, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Bharti, Ms. Aarti Mahto, Balaji Srinivasan, Shreenivas Patil. 698 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Advs. for the Respondents: Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Shakul R. Ghatole, Sambhaji Gawande, Vatsalya Vigya, Shradha, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Mehta, J. 1. Heard. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellants in the above captioned appeals are arraigned as accused in the FIR No. 443 of 20151 registered with MIDC Walunj Police Station, Aurangabad for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2 4. Since both the appeals arise out of a common order dated 8th October, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay Appellate Side, at Aurangabad3 dismissing Criminal Application No. 6
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.