Employer Cannot Seek Quashing of Criminal Breach of Trust and Forgery FIR Merely by Calling It a Salary Dispute: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Rajeev Jha v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 25 May 2026
Citation: CRM-M-15650-2022
Bench: Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that criminal proceedings involving allegations of criminal breach of trust, forgery, unauthorized encashment of company cheques and misappropriation of funds cannot be quashed merely because the accused claims the dispute to be civil in nature arising from salary dues. The Court reiterated that disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Summary: The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 408, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, with Section 204 IPC subsequently added, alleging criminal breach of trust, forgery and misappropriation by the petitioner during his employment as an Accountant with the complainant-company.
According to the complainant-company, the petitioner was entrusted with accounting work, banking transactions, cheque handling and cash management. During audit scrutiny, discrepancies were allegedly detected in the accounts maintained by him. It was further alleged that after receiving a termination notice, the petitioner stopped reporting for work and several company cheques were subsequently encashed into accounts linked with him. The company also alleged disappearance of cheque leaves, company documents, letterheads, stamp and misappropriation of cash.
The petitioner argued that the FIR was a counterblast to his earlier complaint and civil recovery suit seeking unpaid salary arrears from the employer. According to him, his agreed salary was substantially higher than what was actually paid and an amount exceeding ₹3 lakh remained outstanding. He contended that the disputed cheque amount represented salary dues and that the employer had maliciously given a criminal colour to a purely civil employer-employee dispute.
Opposing the petition, the State and complainant-company argued that investigation had revealed unauthorized encashment of company cheques, transfer of funds into the petitioner’s personal bank accounts and disappearance of company documents and cheque books. The prosecution further relied upon recovery of cheque books, stamp-pad and other documents from the petitioner pursuant to his disclosure statement.
The High Court reiterated the settled principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., observing that such powers are to be exercised sparingly and that the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while examining a prayer for quashing of FIR.
After examining the allegations and material collected during investigation, the Court held that the FIR disclosed specific allegations regarding unauthorized encashment of company cheques, transfer of funds into personal accounts, disappearance of cheque leaves and forgery-related offences. The Court noted that bank records had been collected during investigation and questioned documents had been sent for forensic examination to RFSL, Bhondsi.
The Court observed that the allegations were not confined merely to non-payment of salary or breach of employment terms. It held that whether the disputed cheque amounts actually represented salary dues or whether the FIR had been lodged maliciously as a counterblast to civil proceedings were all disputed factual issues requiring appreciation of evidence before the trial court.
The High Court further reiterated that merely because civil proceedings are pending between parties or a dispute has civil consequences does not justify quashing of criminal proceedings where allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings, holding that no ground was made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.