Gujarat High Court
Rohit Singhal S/O N.S.Singhal vs State Of Gujarat on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 10110 of 2016
==========================================================
ROHIT SINGHAL S/O N.S.SINGHAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHADRISH S RAJU(6676) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MJ MEHTA(5797) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SAURABH J MEHTA(2170) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. CHINTAN DAVE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 22/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as " the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR No. C.R I-155 of 2016 lodged with Athwa Line Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and all consequential proceedings arising from the same FIR qua the petitioner herein.
1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. M.J Mehta for the private respondent and learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondent State.
1.2 Brief facts of the case are as under :_ Page 1 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined 1.3 That the complainant is running an office located at 604/A Center Point Surat and maintains his family from the said business of trading, which the complainant runs in the name and style as M/s. Arora Sales Agency.
1.4 From the FIR it is shown that the complainant came in contact with one company Viz FERNAS Constructions India Pvt. Ltd. And since 2013 the complainant is doing business of steel trading with FERNAS.
1.5 That the complainant is doing business of fabrication at Plot NO. 2/69 SEZ area Dahej, wherein the complainant used to do fabrication work for FERNAS as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties.
1.6 That FERNAS was having tie up with one OPAL Company and was doing job work of OPAL Company. Further it shows from the FIR that OPAL company has also guaranteed the complainant to pay the outstanding amount.
1.7 That on 6.3.2014, FERNAS sent on e-mail to the complainant regarding one purchase order worth Rs. 4,81,275/- and on 16.6.2014 second purchase order worth Rs.34,34,012/- was sent to the complainant. That total purchase order worth Rs. 39,15,287/- was sent by FERNAS to the complainant. That the complainant issued proforma Page 2 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined invoice No.4 dated 21.7.2014 for Rs. 22,17,417/- confirming the purchase orders.
1.8 That FERNAS sent and L.C draft worth Rs. 22,70,417/- dated 25.7.2014 via e-mail as per the request of the complainant.
1.9. That before any confirmation regarding sending of the original L.C to BOI, complainant sent goods on 4.8.2014 against the proforma invoice No. 4 worth Rs. 22,70,417/- to FERNAS as per the purchase orders.
1.10 After giving information regarding L. C draft, FERNAS neither gave reply to any of the communications of the complainant nor did make any payment towards the goods received.
1.11 That the consideration in the form of money was not obtained in exchange of the goods given to FERNAS. It is further alleged that the complainant sent an e-mail on 6.8.2014 to one Mr. Anilkumar and Mr. Sanjay Prakash at FERNAS informing them that the company has given confirmation regarding the goods.
1.12 That the said Mr. Sanjay and Mr. Anilkumar replied to the email of the complainant on 09.08.2014, in which it was stated that as per the meeting held at the complainant's Page 3 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined Dahej office on 04.08.2014 and as requested by FERNAS in the meeting, confirmation mail has been sent again.
1.13 That Mr. Sanjay Prakash has sent an email dated 11.08.2014 to the complainant informing that FERNAS has done the required procedure for L.C. 1.14 That the complainant after losing patience sent an e- mail dated 1.9.2014 to Mr.Rishi Kapoor, Mr. Abhai Nigam, Mr. Sanjay Prakash and Mr. Anil Kumar after 20 days of the last conversation with Mr. Sanjay Prakash. That the said e- mail was sent to inform that as per the last conversation dated 11.8.2014 no L.C is received by the complainant but the complainant has sent all the goods as per the orders.
1.15 That the complainant sent an e-mail to Mr. Sanjay Prakash, Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Rishi Kapoor to inform them that many e-mails were sent by the complainant but of no avail. It is alleged that the complainant made request to look after the matter but still of no avail.
1.16 That the complainant sent emails to Sukant Opel India Ltd., Mr. Rajendra Prakash Opel. Mr. Hemant Jayant Opel, Mr. Krishlapa Sharma Opel, Mr. Varunsingh E.I.L., Mr. Gopal Rai Opel, Mr. Civilities Opel, Mr. Rahulkumar E.I.L., Mr. Iladas E I.L. and conveyed that the complainant and his bank (BOI) has not received any original L.C. from Page 4 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined FERNAS for the purchase order made by FERNAS on behalf of OPAL Group of Companies whereas, OPAL company has received goods from the complainant's company. It is alleged that the complainant did not receive any reply/answer to this mail. That again on 12.09.2014, complainant sent an e-mail to Mr. Sunil Singh OPAL, RCM of OPAL and EIL regarding non-receipt of the LC draft and the complainant also stated that they have not received the LC through they have delivered all the goods as demanded. It is further alleged that even after many reminders the complainant has not received any reply for the same. It is further alleged that the complainant finally went to the premises of Sukant Opel Ltd. and met RCM A.K. Mishra and informed him about the problem to which Mr. Mishra said that they have not issued any such L.C. draft to FERNAS and if any draft exists then it is a bogus draft.
1.17 That draft issued was with the name of BOI, the complainant personally visited the bank premises and inquired with the authorities about the said L.C. draft and the authorities in reply said that they have not received any L.C. draft. It is further alleged that Chief mail to Manager Mr. Jaynarayan of BOI sent a [email protected] and [email protected] and asked about the draft and wrote that the bank has not received any L.C. It is further alleged that no reply was obtained by the Chief Manager of BOI and a copy of the sai conversation was sent to the complainant Page 5 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined through bar authorities via mail.
1.18 That FERNAS issued work order to complainant and to increase the substantial value of work order a bogus and forged L.C. draft along with E Gaurantee letter was submitted to the complainant and the complainant believing the same, sent products worth Rs. 22,70417/- to FERNAS and having obtained no consideration in form of money, and eventually suffered loss which resulted in the impugned FIR.
1.19. Hence this petition.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju for the petitioner, seeking quashment of the FIR would submit that FIR is filed after gross delay of 2 ½ years without having any explanation offered in the FIR. He would further submit that FIR if is taken on its face value would at the most says that it is a civil transaction between the purchaser and the seller. Expanding the facts of the case he would submit that FERNAS Construction is the contractor of the OPAL company which is a Government undertaking and has given some purchase order to the complainant as per the FIR worth of Rs. 39,15,287/- whereby goods and materials were directly supplied to the OPAL Company which is a Government of Gujarat undertaking.
Page 6 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr. Raju submits that petitioner was a Professional Director of the FERNAS construction and has resigned from the Directorship of the Company w.e.f. 31.3.2015. He referred to page 33 of the compilation in support of the contentions. He further submit that as on date of the filing of the FIR, the petitioner was no more the Director of the FERNAS Construction India Pvt. Ltd. In background of above facts he would submit that the FIR if taken into the consideration it is in two parts firstly it is with regard to non-payment of certain amount for the goods and material supplied and secondly that only draft LC was forwarded.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish Raju further submits that as per the prevailing customs among the business community before sending the Letter of Credit, the draft LC is sent and if it is approved then the LC would be sent. He would submits that draft LC contains various details which has to be approved by the seller and if it is approved the regular LC would be sent. He would submit that sending a draft LC by no means can be stated to be creating a forged document satisfying the need of 'forged document' stated in Section 464 of the IPC which may attract the offence under Sections 467 and 471 of the IPC. He would further submit that the FIR even does not indicate that the petitioner has committed any forgery as defined in Section 463 of IPC with Page 7 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined the complainant. He would refer to document on record, particularly Annexure D, a letter dated 9.4.2015 issued by Arora Sales Agency-complainant, which certifies that no outstanding payment remains against FERNAS Construction Pvt. Ltd as well as against M/s OPAL Company. He further referred to documents on pages No. 42 and 43 of the compilation, to submit that the OPAL has released the payment in favour of FERNAS Construction and paid it directly to the complainant Company which could be noticed from the documents on record. He has placed reliance on e-mail on record and thereafter he submits that the present FIR is nothing but filed with the oblique motive to harass the petitioner. It is also submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the complainant, on page 61 of the compilation, complainant does not deny the letters placed by the petitioner on record but states that those payments are made towards some other outstanding dues and not towards dues being the subject matter of the complaint. He submits that such reply, is sheer after thought, as no issue of paying other outstanding dues was ever raised.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish Raju lastly submitted that Shri Rohit Singhal being a Director singly cannot be prosecuted without joining the company as the company being the legal entity has to be joined to earmark the vicarious liability of the Director. In the present case, since Page 8 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined the company has not joined as the accused no reason arises to prosecute the petitioner for his vicarious liability. Learned advocate Mr.Bhardrish Raju in support of his submission relied upon the following judgments :
(a) In the case of Delhi Race Cub (1940) Ltd Ors. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 SCC Online SC 2248 (para 33 to 39, 42 and 43) "33 It has been held in State of Gujarat Vs. Jaswantlal Nathalal reported in (1968) 2 SCR 408, "The term "entrusted" found in Section 33. It has been held in State of Gujarat v. Jaswantial Nathalal 405 IPC governs not only the words "with the property immediately following it but also the words "or with any dominion over the property" ((1965) 2 SCR 4291. Before there can be any entrustment there must occurring thereafter-see Velji Raghvaji Patel v. State of Maharashtra he a trust meaning thereby an obligation annexed to the ownership of property and a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him for the benefit of another or of another and the owner.
But that does not mean that such an entrustment need conform to all the technicalities of the law of trust see laswantral Manlial Akhaney v. State of Bombay [1956 SCR 4831. The expression "entrustment" carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Further the person handing over the property must have confidence in the person taking the property so as to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an "entrustment"".
34. Similarly, in Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU(X), New Court held that the expression "entrusted with property" used in Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta. (1996) 5 SCC 591 this Court held that the expression "entrusted with property" usedwhen the Page 9 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined contract is made and it is immaterial whether the time of payment of the price or the time of delivery of goods, or both, is postponed.
xxx xxx When 24. Goods sent on approval or "on sale or return". goods are delivered to the buyer on approval or "on sale or return" or other similar terms, the property therein passes to the buyer-
(a) when he signifies his approval or acceptance to the seller or does any other act adopting the transaction,
(b) if he does not signify his approval or acceptance to the seller but retains the goods without giving notice of rejection, then, if a time has been fixed for the return of the goods on the expiration of such time, and, if no time has been fixed, on the expiration of a reasonable time.
36. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever erty in the goods that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to Day the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the Core. There can be civil remedy for the non- payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. (See: Lalit Chaturvedi v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171 & Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301]
37. The case at hand falls in category No. 1 as laid in Smt. Nagawwa (supra) referred to in para 7 of this judgment.
Page 10 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
38. If it is the case of the complainant that a particular amount is due and payable to him then he should have filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount against the appellants herein. But he could not have gone to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing a complaint of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
39. It appears that till this date, the complainant has not filed any civil suit for recovery of the amount which according to him is due and payable to him by the appellants. He seems to have prima facie lost the period of limitation for filing such a civil suit.
42. When dealing with a private complaint, the law enjoins upon the magistrate duty to meticulously examine the contents of the complaint so as to determine whether the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as the case may be is made out from the averments made in the complaint. The magistrate must carefully apply Its mind to ascertain whether the allegations, as stated, genuinely constitute these specific offences. In contrast, when a case arises from a. FIR, this responsibility is of the police to thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations levelled by the informant indeed falls under the category of cheating or criminel breach of trust. Unfortunately, it has become a common practice for the police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed register an FIR for both the offences le criminal breach of trust and cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind.
43. It is high time that the police officers across the country are imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. The two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are antithetical to each ather. The two provisions of the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other.
Page 11 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined b. Reliance is placed on the case of Rikab Birani and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 SCC Online SC 823( para 19-20 and 26-27)
19. It is the duty and obligation of the court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing process, particularly when the matter is essentially of civil nature. 12 The prevalent impression that civil remedies, being time-consuming, do not adequately protect the interests of creditors or lenders should be discouraged and rejected as criminal procedure cannot be used to apply pressure. Failure to do so results in the breakdown of the rule of law and amounts to misuse and abuse of the legal process.
20. In yet another case, again arising from criminal proceedings. initiated in the State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court was constrained to note recurring cases being encountered wherein parties repeatedly attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing vexatious complaints, camouflaging allegations that are ex facie outrageous or are pure civil claims. These attempts must not be entertained and should be dismissed at the threshold. Reference was made to a judgment of this Court in Thermax Limited v. K.M. Jahny which held that courts should be watchful of the difference between civil and criminal wrongs, though there can be situations where the allegation may constitute both civil and criminal wrongs. Further, there has to be a conscious application of mind on these aspects by the Magistrate, as a summoning order has grave consequences of setting criminal proceedings in motion. Though the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set criminal proceedings into motion. The Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence on record and may even put questions to the complainant/investigating officer etc. to elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations. The summoning order has to be passed when the complaint or chargesheet discloses an offence and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. The summoning order should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course.
Page 12 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
26. We clarify that the present appeal only deals with the question of criminal offence. We have not commented or made any observations on the civil rights of complainant- respondent No. 2.
27. We are also constrained to impose costs of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on the State of Uttar Pradesh as, in spite of repeated judgments/orders of this Court, we are being flooded with cases of civil wrongs being made the subject matter of criminal proceedings by filing chargesheets, etc. c. Another case relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Raju is case of Sushil Sethi and Another Vs The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. 2020(3) SCC 240 (paras 8.2 and 8.3) 8.2. It is also required to be noted that the main allegations can be said to be against the company. The company has not been made a party. The allegations are restricted to the Managing Director and the Director of the company respectively. There are no specific allegations against the Managing Director or even the Director. There are no allegations to constitute the vicarious liability. In the case of Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 668, it is observed and held by this Court that the penal code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the company when the accused is the company. It is further observed and held that the vicarious liability of the Managing Director and Director would arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in the statute. It is further observed that statute indisputably must contain provision fixing such vicarious liabilities. It is further observed that even for the said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite 27 allegations which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability. In the Page 13 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined present case, there are no such specific allegations against the appellants being Managing Director or the Director of the company respectively. Under the circumstances also, the impugned criminal proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside.
8.3 At this stage, it is required to be noted that though the FIR was filed in the year 2000 and the chargesheet was submitted/filed as far back as on 28.5.2004, the appellants were served with the summons only in the year 2017, i.e., after a period of approximately 13 years from the date of filing the chargesheet. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a grave error in not quashing and setting aside the impugned criminal proceedings and has erred in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
d) Learned advocate Mr. Raju also relied upon case of Rajeev Jagdishchandra Khandelwal and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat MANU/GJ/0466/2017 (paras 26 to 30) "26. The delay in lodging the First Information Report also assumes significance in the facts of the present case. with all its vivid
27. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant we details gives an assurance ringde occurrence in case, there is ndoubtedly, bable when such the complaint is in nhung the FIR, the complainant delay in lodging the FIR does delay is properly explained. However, always fatal. (vide MANU/SC/0591/2010 2010 CH. LJ 4710) explanation for the same plainant must give complainant's case improba not make the compl in lodging the vide: Kishan Steve deliberate delay Gurpal singh and others.
28. a. In cases where there an FIR, the court has to look for a ation, the delay plausible explanation for such delay in absence of such an explanation may be fatal. The reason fuch delay in absenceedings may not be merely tha such of red Page 14 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined version of event ore it for the reason f ason that a allegations were an afterthought or had given a coloured cases, the court should carefully examine the facts before ut ulterior Frustrated litigant who failed to succeed ceed before a civil court may initiate criminal intention or the ul proceedings just to harass the other side with a malafide intent od frustrated litigants should not be king vengeance on the other partyustrations by cheaply invokined to Jurisdiction of the mitted to give Tee court proceedings ought not to be degenerate into he crapnal court. The court prosecution. In such a case, whee and FIR is lodged clearly pon of harassmepitande other party because of a privatminal personal grudge early with a view to spite the party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of Kishan Singh (D) through law in the and circumstances of the case. (vide LRs the facts and circumstan, MANU/SC/0591/2010: 2010 Cri.L.). 4710].
29. There is one additional feature attached to this matter. It is incomprehensible why if a fraud has been practiced and the complainant has been cheated, he would fail to initiated appropriate civil proceedings for the recovery of his legitimate dues. It is not possible to belleve that when the complainant claims that have been duped of lacs of rupees, he would rest content with lodging an F.I.R. without doing anything more in order to protect his interest so far as the recovery of the amount is concerned. The point deserves to be underscored (and its importance cannot be over emphasised). The complainant could not have, therefore, been oblivious of the need to protect his interest by recourse to the Civil Court. The criminal prosecution could at best have resulted in the persons responsible for the fraud being punished. The same could not have protected his civil rights in regard to the recovery of the amount due and payable. Again, how could the complainant be sure that the prosecution was bound to succeed and that the Courts were, ultimately, bound to hold that a fraud or cheating has been practiced upon him. It is, therefore, not possible to believe that he would have remained indifferent and waited for long time without instituting any civil suit for recovery of the amount.
Page 15 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
30. In the overall view of the matter, I am convinced that the F.I.R. fails to disclose any cognizance offence. The gross delay of seven years in filing the F.I.R., failure to file any civil suit for recovery of the amount, civil civil suit filed by the applicants herein way back in the year 2003 against the first informant and a criminal complaint lodged at the concerned police station by the applicants herein against the first informant in the year 2006 is sufficient to reach to the conclusion that there is no element of criminal offence as such, as alleged by the first informant.
e) Reference was also made to the case Mohammad Wajid and Ors Vs. State of U.P, reported as 2023 SCC Online SC 719Paras 33, 35 and 36 are read as )
33.In the aforesaid context, we may clarify that delay in theregistration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground forquashing of the FIR. However, delay with other attendingcircumstances emerging from the record of the case renderingthe entire case put up by the prosecution inherentlyimprobable, may at times become a good ground to quash theFIR and consequential proceedings. If the FIR, like the one inthe case on hand, is lodged after a period of more than one yearwithout disclosing the date and time of the alleged incident andfurther without any plausible and convincing explanation for such delay, then how is the accused expected to defend himselfin the trial. It is altogether different to say that in a given case,in the course of investigation the investigating agency may beable to ascertain the date and time of the incident, etc. Therecovery of few incriminating articles may also at times lendcredence to the allegations levelled in the FIR. However, in the absence of all such materials merely on the basis of vague and41 general allegations levelled in the FIR, the accused cannot be put to trial.
35.In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced thatthe continuation of the criminal case arising from the FIR Page 16 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined No.224 of 2022 registered at Mirzapur Police Station, Saharanpurwill be nothing but abuse of the process of the law. In thepeculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined toaccept the case put up on behalf of the appellants herein.
36.In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.The impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad is hereby set aside. The criminal proceedings arising43 from FIR No. 224 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022 registered at PoliceStation Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P. are hereby quashed .
f. Case of Kishan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Gurpal Singh And Others (2010 (8) SCC 775) (Paras, 21, 22, 24) is also relied to buttress the argument.
"21. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal. (Vide Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana).
22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging an FIR, the court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In the absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an afterthought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the civil court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their Page 17 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be f permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Vide Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh, State of Haryana v. 9 Bhajan Lal2; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. and Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P.14).
24. So far as the present appellants are concerned, agreement to sell dated 22-10-1988 was executed in favour of their father and the sale deed was to be executed by 15-6-1989. No action was taken till 1996 for non-execution of the sale deed. The appellants' father approached the court after 7 years by filing Suit No. 81 of 1996 for specific performance, However, by that time, the suit filed by the present respondents stood decreed. The appellants father filed another Suit No. 1075 of 1996 for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of Respondents 1 to 4. The said suit was dismissed by the Additional District Judge (Senior Division), Khanna on 10-6-2002. Subsequently, the appellants preferred RFA No. 2488 of 2002 on 15-7-2002 against the aforesaid order, and the said appeal is still pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court."
6. Making reliance upon the aforesaid judgments, and making aforesaid argument, learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish Raju submits that filing of the FIR against the petitioner is solely on the ground as copy of the e-mail has been sent by the petitioner is gross abuse of process of law, hence, request the Court to quash the FIR.
7. Per contra learned advocate Mr. Mehta appearing for Page 18 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined the private respondent would take this Court through the purchase order and submitted that it is the petitioner who had placed the order for purchase for and on behalf of FERNAS Construction which makes it manifestly clear that the petitioner is the sole mind behind the entire forgery. He would further submit that the petitioner has relied upon certain documents in support of his petition but Court is legally prevented from taking up the defense of the accused at the time of quashing the FIR therefore the document upon which the petitioner has relied upon cannot be considered at this juncture.
8. Learned advocate further submit that the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code being inherent and extraordinary should be exercised sparingly. He would further submit that it is settled law that the High Court can interfere under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or othewise to secure ends of justice if found on face of the reading of the FIR. He would submit that in the present case the FIR is disclosing a cognisable offence against the petitioner. Thus, this Court cannot hold mini trial at this juncture to believe that the amount claimed in the FIR is already paid and other issue raised by the petitioner cannot be considered to quash the FIR. Therefore, it is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Mehta to dismiss this petition.
Page 19 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
9. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta places reliance upon the judgment in the case of Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2020 and in the case of Prashant Bharati Vs. State of N.C.T of Delhi 2013(1) SCR 504.
10. Learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave supports the argument of learned advocate Mr. Mehta and submits to dismiss this petition.
11. Having heard learned advocate for both the sides, at the outset I may refer to the judgment in the case of Rajeev Kourav (supra), to understand the scope of section 482 of the CRPC. Para 6 thereof reads as under :
" 6. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding."Page 20 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
12. There is no cavil that Court should sparingly exercise the wide discretion available under Section 482 of the CRPC. However, it is equally a settled law that in order to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise or to secure the ends of justice, the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of the CRPC.
13. In the recent judgment in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025, the Supreme Court in regard to the documents produced during quashing proceedings carved out fours steps to be taken up ordinarily to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing raised by the accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the CRPC. Para 20 thereof reads as under :
"20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.-
(i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, ie, the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material the factual is sufficient to reject and overrule assertions contained in the complaint, ie, the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.Page 21 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
(iii) step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted b the prosecution/complainant; and or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/compainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative. judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]"
14. In background of above and applying the ratio thereof the FIR spells that the FERNAS Construction company situated at plot 2/55 SEZ, Dahej and is involved in the Steel Trading. The complainant is involved in the fabrication business, in the very same SEZ, Dahej and as such the complainant and FERNAS Construction came in contact with each other. According to the FIR, two e-mails dated 6.3.2014 and 16.6.2014 were forwarded to FERNAS Construction to purchase goods and material worth of Rs. 39,15,187/-.
Page 22 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
15. The goods and material worth Rs 22,17,417/- was sent to the OPAL India on 21.7.2014 by invoice No.4. It is the case of the complainant that draft L.C was sent by the FERNAS Construction Pvt. Ltd., to take the liability of payment. Then there is some e-mail exchanged between the parties but not to the petitioner and ultimately it was apprehended by the complainant that he will not get his payment and therefore, on 16.10.2015, forwarded e-mail to the petitioner.
16. The case of the complainant is that he received the bogus L.C. but record speaks that no L.C was ever forwarded to the complainant. It was a draft of the L.C which was forwarded to the complainant by no means. A draft/ of the document can be a bogus nor it can be forged. A document can be said to be a forged if it satisfies ingredients of Section 464 of the IPC. If a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of the document; makes or transmits any electronic record; or part of the electronic record; affixes any electronic signature or any electronic record or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of the document was made, signed sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made. The second part of Section 464 of the IPC says that whoever without lawful authority dishonestly or fraudulently by Page 23 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined cancellation or otherwise alters a document or any material part thereof and third part of Section 464 says that who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal execute or alter a document knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or by any reason practiced upon him that person does not know the content of the document, is making a false document.
17. Apt to note, that FIR came to be filed even before LC is issued, draft of LC has been treated as forged docments. It is totally misnomer belief of complaint to treat draft L.C as forged document. The FIR per se lacks the essential ingredients of Section 464 of IPC being a very root for invoking the offence of Section 467 and 471 of IPC. The draft document cannot be said to be fraudulently or dishonestly executed document. It is a document which shows intention of a party to say that this kind of final document, would be if it is approved. So until an approval has been accorded to such document it never falls to even the definition of a document. Thus FIR on its face lacks essentials of offence under Section 464 of IPC, being necessary to invoke punishment provision under Section 467 and 471 of IPC being necessary to invoke punishment under Section 467 and 471 of IPC.
18. In so far as document upon which learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish Raju relies are of indisputable nature. Form DIR 7 issued by the ROC is a inconvertible document. The document at Annexure D issued by the complainant are of irrefutable nature. Pertinent to note that these documents Page 24 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined issued by the complainant are prior in point of time/ they are issued before filing of the ocmplant however, having no reference in the complaint. The complainant tried to explain this document in affidavit-in-reply, but it cannot be accepted as it was his duty to explain this document in the FIR itself. It was to give a light to this document in the FIR that complaint needed to as it was to have issued no due certificate to OPAL and FERNAS Construction but that it was in regard to some other transaction and not in regard to transaction in question. Thus, the document at Annexure D makes the FIR being victim of mischief of suppression of material facts. Likewise email at page No. 42 draws that the payment has been made to the complainant by the OPAL directly is also irrefutable document, this document is dated 7.5.2015. This is thus a document much prior to the filing of the FIR. This document was also required to be explained by the complainant in the FIR. But as said earlier the complainant chose not to disclose the document in the FIR, as also not making explanation thereof. Ergo, evidently or manifestly the FIR suffers from the principle of suppression of material facts.
19. Recently in the case Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. State of Gujarat 2025, INSC 614, the Apex Court in the case of commercial transaction whether the offence under Section 406 and 420 are made out or not has examined the plethora of previous decisions and held that commercial Page 25 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined transaction where goods are purchased and the amount has not been paid would not attract the criminal actions. It is termed at the best a civil dispute. The relevant paras read as under :
"9. The FIR has been registered under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The scope and expanse of these sections is better appreciated in the company of sections 405 and 415 of the IPC. This court in the case of Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan4, culled out the following ingredients to constitute the criminal breach of trust:
"11. For an offence punishable under Section 406, IPC, the following ingredients must exist:
i. The accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property;
ii. The accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so; and iii. Such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract.
"9. The FIR has been registered under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The scope and expanse of these sections is better appreciated in the company of sections 405 and 415 of the IPC. This court in the case of Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan4, culled out the following ingredients to constitute the criminal breach of trust:
"11. For an offence punishable under Section 406, IPC, the following ingredients must exist:
9.1 This court, while discussing the expression "entrustment" in Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada5, observed that it carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues Page 26 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined to be its owner. Entrustment is not necessarily a term of law. It may have different implications in different contexts. In its most general significance, all its imports is handing over the possession for some purpose which may not imply the conferment of anyproprietary right therein. The ownership or beneficial interest in the property in respect of which criminal breach of trust is alleged to have been committed, must be in some person other than the accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way for his benefit.
9.2 Further, in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, this court observed as follows:
"15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon theintention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed."
(Emphasis supplied) 9.3 The ingredients to constitute an offence under sections 415 read with 420 of IPC have been considered and laid down by this court in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Anr v. Sudha Seetharam and Anr7, as under:
"16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:Page 27 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined 16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him:
16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and 16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
18. xxx xxx xxx
19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
19.1 A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and 19.2 The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to:
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security."
(Emphasis supplied) 9.4 Put succinctly, to constitute an offence under sections 415 and 420 of the IPC, the above ingredients are present in the FIR .
10. This court in AM Mohan v. State Represented by SHO & Another has observed as follows:
"13. It could be thus seen for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the Page 28 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:
(i) the deception of any person;
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and
(iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. As stated in the FIR:
(i) In March 2012, the appellant had directly contacted the respondent no. 2, gave him his visiting card, and saw the samples of the work being done by the latter;
(ii) Further, the appellant also enquired from respondent no. 2 from whom he was purchasing the goods of sarees. After 2-3 days, he came to the office of the appellant and demanded other samples;
(iii) Appellant had asked respondent no. 2 to prepare goods and informed that he would make the payments in 60 to 90 days; and
(iv) Appellant had assured and given trust for making timely payments, stating that he has his own house in Chennai and had good contacts with political persons.
12. From the above, respondent no. 2 has not availed the services of M/s. Oswal Overseas as a transport carrier. It is unclear whether the invoice has been raised in the name of the appellant or the exporter. The "bill of lading" would have disclosed the transfer of title in goods in favour of the appellant. On the contrary, the FIR is filed showing that the appellant, as accused, had an intention to cheat and commit breach of trust. The documents belie the allegations in the FIR. Looking at the controversy from any perspective, a mere civil dispute has been given the colour of an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. We have perused the FIR and are convinced that the inducement is an Page 29 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined explanation to contradict the documents through which exports have been completed. In the circumstances of this case, by referring to inducement, the continuation of investigation/prosecution into the offence of cheating and12 law. Further, what begs the question is whether such non- payment of the sale price can be an offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating at the hands of the second respondent. The answer is clearly no.
17. For the above reasons, and particularly appreciating Annexures-P1 to P3, we are of the view that the continuation of the FIR against the appellant is an abuse of the process of law, and at best, the non-payment of the sale price could be a civil dispute between the appellant and M/s. Oswal Overseas.
The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set aside and FIR No. I-06 of 2017 is quashed.
20. The observations and findings of the Apex Court pari passu applies to the facts of the present case, as present case also involves commercial transaction. FIR on its face value, discloses that certain goods are sold and sale consideration is not received. As per above, such commercial transaction does not establish offence of criminal breach of trust and/or cheating.
21. It is trite to observe that the claimant who was claiming outstanding of Rs. 39 lakhs and also claimed that the bogus or forged letter of credit was issued towards the payment of Rs. 39 lakhs and odd amount did not file the civil suit to recover the said amount. When learned advocate Mr. Mehta was specifically confronted on this issue, he submitted that the complainant has not chosen to file the civil dispute.
Page 30 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/10110/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
22. Lastly, it is to be observed that FERNAS Construction being company having legal entity has not been joined as an accused. FIR is filed against petitioner claiming his vicarious liability. The principal of vicarious liability can be enforced only in a case where the company is made an accused.
23. In view of above, while parting with the order it can be said that even if the FIR is taken on its face value, as a correct and genuine at the best it established civil dispute between the parties. No criminality is carved out. Thus, this is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CRPC to quash FIR which has essence of civil dispute.
,
24. For the forgoing reasons this petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being I-CR No. 155 of 2016 registered with Athwa Lines Police Station and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom the same FIR qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MARY VADAKKANi Page 31 of 31 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 03:14:06 IST 2025