Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar

Order Date: 05‑11‑2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Mohd. Ashraf Beigh (c/w Imran Beigh and another) filed CRM(M) No. 198/2025; Imran Beigh and Abid Beigh filed CRM(M) No. 1129/2025, challenging FIR No. 51/2022 registered on 23‑08‑2022 under Sections 379, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B of the IPC.
  • Respondent: Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and others, represented by Waseem Wani (son of complainant Ghulam Rasool Wani).
  • Background: In May 2020, Managing Director Imran Beigh of Beigh Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. (BCC Pvt. Ltd.) offered to sub‑let an underground railway excavation tunnel contract (T‑77D) at Banihal to Ghulam Rasool Wani. The contract was originally awarded to BCC Pvt. Ltd. by IRCON International Pvt. Ltd., which prohibited sub‑letting without written consent.
  • An agreement dated 20‑12‑2020 (retrospective to 27‑09‑2020) was executed; a bank guarantee of Rs 1 crore was obtained from Ghulam Rasool Wani, transferred to BCC Pvt. Ltd., with part paid in cash.
  • Work commenced on 27‑09‑2020 and continued until 05‑03‑2021. Ghulam Rasool Wani executed works worth Rs 3.78 crores; bills were submitted to IRCON but credited to BCC Pvt. Ltd. instead of the escrow account at HDFC Bank, Narwal.
  • On 13‑03‑2021, Imran Beigh terminated the subcontract without notice, withheld dues, and later proposed to repay 70 % of the bank guarantee (Rs 70 lakhs) and grant 30 % partnership. Ghulam Rasool Wani invested an additional Rs 31 lakhs; a bill > Rs 1 crore was submitted, but payment again went to Imran Beigh, with only 57.5 % of the guarantee returned.
  • A further agreement dated 16‑10‑2021 was signed by Ashraf Beigh (without authority) to pay Rs 42 lakhs to Ghulam Rasool Wani or his vendors. An interim injunction dated 18‑10‑2021 was obtained, after which the petitioners removed machinery and equipment worth several lakhs.
  • Investigation revealed falsified records claiming Ghulam Rasool Wani owed Rs 1.24 crores to BCC Pvt. Ltd.; the company later admitted liability of Rs 1.10 crores, with actual liability estimated at Rs 82 lakhs.
  • Settlement agreements dated 17‑09‑2022 stipulated Imran Beigh would pay Rs 1.5 crores of a Rs 2.25 crores liability in instalments and hand over a house (Khasra No. 225, Bhatindi, Jammu) owned by Ashraf Beigh. Cheques for Rs 1.5 crores were issued; only Rs 50 lakhs cleared, Rs 1 crore dishonoured.
  • The prosecution argued the settlement agreements were further cheating attempts, supporting charges under the listed IPC sections.
  • Petitioners contended the FIR was an abuse of process, converting a civil commercial dispute into a criminal case, alleging bias due to a relative of the complainant being a Crime Branch inspector.
  • Respondents highlighted Imran Beigh’s prior criminal history (multiple FIRs for offences including sections 452, 354, 148, 302, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120‑B, etc.).
  • The Court examined the maintainability of petitions under Section 528 BNSS, noting that filing of a charge sheet does not preclude judicial scrutiny of prima‑facie criminality.
  • Legal analysis referenced Supreme Court precedents (Indian Oil Corp. v. NEPC, Anand Kumar Mohatta, etc.) establishing that a commercial dispute does not automatically bar criminal prosecution if the allegations disclose an offence.
  • The Court evaluated each alleged offence:
  • Section 379 (theft) – machinery belonged to BCC Pvt. Ltd.; removal of own property does not constitute theft.
  • Section 416 (cheating by personation) – Ashraf Beigh merely represented BCC Pvt. Ltd. as father of its MD; no false representation, so Section 419 not attracted.
  • Section 420 (cheating) – Court found no dishonest intent at inception; substantial payments and security were offered, indicating lack of fraudulent intention.
  • Section 463/464 (forgery) – Agreement signed by Ashraf Beigh was not a false document as he did not claim authority he lacked; thus forgery provisions not applicable.
  • The Court concluded that the dispute was purely commercial, lacking criminal intent, and that the investigating agency had effectively acted as a recovery agent, converting a civil claim into a criminal prosecution.
  • Citing Supreme Court observations discouraging conversion of civil disputes into criminal cases, the Court held continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.

Final Outcome

  • The petitions were allowed.
  • FIR No. 51/2022 dated 23‑08‑2022 and the accompanying charge sheet were quashed.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Criminal Procedure, Commercial Contract