LexSURESH KUMAR AGARWAL versus M/S HALDIA STEELS LIMITED & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2473 : 2025 INSC 636 Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. M/s Haldia Steels Limited & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1952 of 2025) 15 April 2025 [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in directing further investigation into the highly belated complaint filed by the complainant-Company after unexplained delay of six years by twisting and manipulating the facts to give a colour of criminal offence to a purely civil dispute. Headnotes† Abuse of process of law – Criminal color imparted to a civil dispute – Further investigation directed – Impermissibility – Complainant-Company filed complaint alleging non-supply of manganese ore against the advance payment of Rs.50 lakhs, FIR registered u/ss.120B, 406 and 420, IPC – Closure report filed by IO concluding that the dispute was of civil nature arising out of the breach of contract and that no offence was made out against the accused-appellant – Complainant filed Protest Petition praying for thorough further investigation – Rejected by CMM, closure report accepted – Revision filed by complainant, allowed by High Court – Interference with: Held: 1.1 Alleged acts of fraud and criminal misappropriation, emanating from the breach of the MOU between the parties took place between the years 2007-2008 – However, the complaint was filed in 2014 – No plausible explanation was offered by the complainant for this gross and undue delay of almost six years in filing of the complaint. [Para 19] 1.2 Complainant had twisted and manipulated the facts in the highly belated complaint just in order to give a colour of criminal offence to a dispute which was purely civil in nature emanating from the breach of agreement – The conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the final report are unimpeachable. [Para 24] * Author 2474 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 1.3 Complainant tried to project that the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid to the appellant as advance towards supply of manganese ore whereas, the written document executed between the parties, in unequivocal terms, indicates that the amount was paid in terms of the MOU which mandated the complainant to transfer a total sum of Rs.3,20,00,000/- to the appellant whereafter, the appellant would be required to get his proprietorship concern incorporated into a company and then, transfer the shares thereof to the complainant – Hence, the incorporation of the proprietorship concern into a company and the transfer of shares thereof was contingent upon the complainant performing its obligations under the MOU, which it admittedly failed to do – Complainant twisted the facts by claiming that the advance amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid to the appellant for supply of manganese ore – This allegation was totally false and concocted and could not be substantiated by any purchase order, etc. [Paras 23, 24] 1.4 Once the investigation was completed, the complainant tried to take a new stance claiming that the order whereby, the State Government had approved the transfer of the mining lease in favour of the appellant, was forged – Complainant is well-established in the field of mining – Thus, the omission of the basic facts in the highly belated complaint, that the appellant had allegedly provided the complainant with some fabricated Government order, renders the entire case set up in the FIR doubtful and unworthy of credence. [Para 24] 1.5 High Court was unduly swayed by this totally new and conjectural stance taken by the complainant in the protest petition and directed further investigation into the matter without assigning a justifiable and sustainable reason – Directing further investigation into such a frivolous complaint, filed after gross, undue and unexplained delay of six years, is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law – [Paras 25, 27] 1.6 Impugned order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside – Order of the CMM accepting the final report and rejecting the protest petition filed by the complainant is restored. [Para 28] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2475 Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. M/s Haldia Steels Limited & Anr. List of Keywords Highly belated complaint; Colour of criminal offence; Dispute purely civil in nature; Purely civil dispute; Facts twisted and manipulated; Breach of agreement; FIR highly belated; Belated FIR; Breach of terms and conditions of the MOU/con
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.