TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. The Appellants before this Court have challenged the order dated 02.12.2020 of the Karnataka High Court by which their petition Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR has been dismissed. The case of the Appellants before the High Court of Karnataka was that the FIR which was instituted by the complainant i.e. Respondent No. 2 is primarily a civil dispute and has no criminal element and the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants is nothing but an abuse of the process and consequently, they had invoked the extraordinary powers of the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The two Appellants before this Court are the Assistant Manager (Marketing) and the Managing D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to the Appellants. Therefore, as of now, a total amount of Rs. 62 lakhs as against Rs. 1,01,58,574/- which was claimed by the complainant has been admittedly paid. The case of the Respondent No. 2 against the settlement dated 27.12.2017 is that the Respondent No. 2 was coerced in entering into this settlement and this is not a settlement arrived at by the free will of the complainant and therefore the prosecution of the Appellants is necessary under the criminal law. The High Court has refused to accept the contention of the Appellants that the dispute between the parties in any case is civil in nature. The High Court was of the opinion that since the Appellants had claimed that the complainant assembled only 28,995 bicycles, which would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 26 lacs have been paid by the Appellants pursuant to a settlement. The reasons and the logic for arriving at a settlement are quite different. In this case it seems, it is primarily to bring a quietus to the dispute and to have peace and to avoid litigation. The mere fact that the Appellants have paid an additional amount pursuant to the settlement, cannot be presumed as an act of cheating. Moreover, the complainant does not deny the fact that a settlement was reached between the parties though he says he was coerced into the settlement. He does not dispute that the additional amount paid by the Appellants under the terms of the compromise deed, which is an amount of Rs. 25,75,442 (after deducting TDS) was received by the complainant, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions 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 happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court. (emphasis supplied) Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. 2021:INSC:440 : (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. 2023:INSC:86, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was ag....