Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, M. R. Shah, JJ.
Govind Prasad Kejriwal – Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Bihar & Anr. – Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2020
Decided on : 31-01-2020
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 341 and 379 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Hurt, wrongful restraint and theft – Considering/taking allegations in complaint as they are, initiation of criminal proceedings against accused is nothing but abuse of process of law and Court – A purely civil dispute is tried to be given a colour of criminal dispute – Main allegations in complaint are with respect to partnership firm – Partner of partnership firm has not made any complaint – Allegations in complaint are with respect to surrender of cinema license before District Magistrate – None of ingredients for making out case under Sections 341 and 379 are satisfied – Even none of ingredients of Section 323 of IPC are satisfied – Even considering allegations in complaint as they are, to continue criminal proceedings against accused even for offence under Section 323 shall be an abuse of process of Court and law – This is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and to quash impugned criminal proceedings – Order passed by Magistrate taking cognizance against accused and issuing summons against accused for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 379 of IPC and also impugned Judgment and order passed by High Court quashed and set aside – Impugned criminal proceedings initiated against accused arising out of Criminal Complaint quashed. (Paras 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5 and 7)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 202 – Enquiry by Magistrate – While holding inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Magistrate is required to take a broad view and a prima facie case – However, even while conducting/holding inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., Magistrate is required to consider whether even a prima facie case is made out or not and whether criminal proceedings initiated are abuse of process of law or Court or not and/or whether dispute is purely of a civil nature or not and/or whether civil dispute is tried to be given a colour of criminal dispute or not. (Para 6.5)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc.No.30284 of 2011 by which High Court has dismissed the said quashing petition preferred by the original accused and has refused to quash criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 464 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 379 IPC, original Accused has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of the Court:
Even while conducting/holding an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., Magistrate is required to consider whether even a prima facie case is made out or not and whether criminal proceedings initiated are an abuse of process of law or the Court or not and/or whether dispute is purely of a civil nature or not and/or whether the civil dispute is tried to be given a colour of criminal dispute or not. Dispute between parties can be said to be purely of a civil nature.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Court emphasized that during an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to take a broad view and consider whether a prima facie case exists, whether the proceedings are an abuse of law, and whether the dispute is of a civil nature or has been improperly given a criminal character (!) (!) .
The Court found that the allegations in the complaint primarily concern a civil dispute related to partnership and property issues, which cannot be converted into a criminal case, thus constituting an abuse of process (!) (!) .
The Court observed that the main allegations do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences under Sections 341, 323, and 379 of the IPC, and even if they did, continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process (!) (!) (!) .
It was noted that the complaint was lodged by a private individual who was not directly involved in the partnership firm, and the allegations pertain to actions taken by the partners, which are essentially civil matters (!) .
The Court highlighted that prior legal actions, such as FIRs and civil suits, indicated ongoing civil disputes, further supporting that the criminal proceedings are a mischaracterization of civil issues (!) .
The Court reaffirmed that the Magistrate and the High Court should exercise their powers to quash criminal proceedings when they are found to be an abuse of process and not supported by the ingredients of the alleged offences (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings, including the order to take cognizance and the subsequent judicial orders, affirming that the case was a civil dispute improperly framed as a criminal case (!) .
These points reflect the Court's view that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool to resolve civil disputes, and when such misuse is evident, proceedings must be quashed to prevent abuse of the legal process.
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc. No. 30284 of 2011 by which the High Court has dismissed the said quashing petition preferred by the original accused and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 464 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 379 IPC, original Accused has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the private respondent herein Gopal Prasad son of Shri Shyam S. Prasad, brother of one Ramesh Kumar - a partner of a firm called Kejriwal Films filed the criminal complaint being Complaint Case No.464 of 2001 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh against the appellant herein - one of the partner of Kejriwal Films, for the offences under Sections 379, 323, 504, 506, 406, 452, 147, 148/34 IPC. The complaint reads as under:
" 1. That the complainant is the brother of Ramesh Kumar, who is a partner of a firm called Kejriwal Firms. The accused Balabhadra Prasad Kejriwal is also a partner in the said firm. Both the accused persons are father and son by relation.
2. That the aforementioned Kejriwal Films has taken the Savera Chitra Mandir on lease and carry on their film business there, whose licence was taken in the name of Govind Prasad Kejriwal.
3. That in order to cause loss to the complainant's brother and his partner Satyanarayan, both the accused persons had hatched a conspiracy and thereby had surrendered the cinema filming licence before the District Magistrate. As such, the cinema filming has been closed since 5.2.2000 and the building has been locked. The complainant and his brother were looking after the building from outside. The complainant's brother is staying outside for the last some days.
4. That during the time of the occurrence, the complainant was going towards the market. When the complainant reached near the Savera Chitra Mandir, saw the gate open. Seeing the gates open, the complainant went inside the Savera Chitra Mandir and saw that the accused persons Govind Prasad Kejriwal and Balbhadra Prasad Kejriwal and 4-5 other unknown people have broke the lock of the cinema hall and its office and had kept their Maruti Car No. HR 51D 8974 inside. The accused Govind Prasad Kejriwal was putting the documents of the cinema hall in a baggage. The accused Balbhadra Prasad Kejriwal was removing the electric fan and other machines by some other people. The accused Balabhadra Prasad Kejriwal himself was holding an electric starter in his hand.
5. That when the complainant objected, the accused persons Govind Prasad Kejriwal and Balabhadra Prasad Kejriwal gave a kick to the complainant and threatened him to kill. The other unknown accused persons pointed their pistol on the complainant and rove him away from the cinema hall.
6. That the accused persons Govind Prasad Kejriwal and Balabhadra Prasad Kejriwal kept the bag containing the documents in their car whose number is HR 51D 8974. The other accused persons removed the fan etc. and kept those in the car.
7. That the accused persons Govind Prasad Kejriwal and Balabhadra Prasad Kejriwal and two unknown accused persons went towards the market in their car. They asked their other people to put their new lock in the cinema hall and threw the old locks. Then the other accused persons came out of the hall and fled in an auto rickshaw towards the market.
8. That those accused persons, with ill-intention, and cause loss to the complainant's brother and partner Ramesh Kumar and with the intention to misappropriate the properties of partnership firm had entered inside the cinema hall by breaking its locks and taken away all the valuable instruments. They had broken the old lock of the cinema hall and put new locks in it and caused damage inside the hall driving out the complainant from the premises.
9. That the complainant's brother had suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000/- due this theft. There
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
