Civil remedy does not bar criminal process where commercial dues are allegedly withheld and complaint discloses criminality.

A commercial payment dispute does not automatically become a purely civil matter so as to justify quashing criminal proceedings under inherent jurisdiction. Where a complaint arising from supply of goods and alleged non-payment discloses assertions of withholding dues and criminality, the mere availability of a civil remedy is insufficient to stop the criminal process at the threshold. The High Court's inherent powers are to be used sparingly and only to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of process. On the facts described, the challenge to the summoning order failed and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order and criminal proceedings arising out of a business transaction alleging non-payment of dues were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the dispute was purely civil in nature and amounted to abuse of process.

Analysis: The application invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash the summoning order in a complaint alleging commission of offences in the course of a commercial dealing. The record showed supply of goods, part-payment, and a substantial outstanding amount remaining unpaid for several years. The Court noted that mere existence of a commercial or civil remedy does not, by itself, exclude criminal liability or justify quashing, particularly where the complaint discloses allegations of withholding dues and criminality is asserted. The Court relied on the settled principle that inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and only where non-interference would result in manifest injustice or abuse of process.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order was rejected and the criminal proceedings were not quashed.

Final Conclusion: A commercial payment dispute, on the facts pleaded, was held insufficient to displace the criminal process at the threshold, and the application for quashing failed.

Ratio Decidendi: The existence of a civil remedy or commercial transaction does not, by itself, bar criminal proceedings or warrant quashing under inherent jurisdiction unless the complaint fails to disclose a case of criminality or continuation of the proceedings would amount to manifest abuse of process.

---