Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 1674
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Bhujbal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 2019; Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2495 of 2017
Decided On : 18-01-2019
Raj Kishor Choudhary, Adv., Prashant Shukla, Adv., Anushree Mishra, Adv., Digant Kallol Deo, Adv., Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Adv., Arjun Garg, Adv.
The main legal point established is that when a controversy is purely civil in nature, criminal proceedings initiated in relation to the same matter may be deemed an abuse of the process of court and can be quashed.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process - Civil Dispute - The court quashed criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2, holding that the controversy was purely civil in nature and the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a civil suit seeking declaration of possession and title over certain land. Subsequently, a criminal complaint was filed by respondent No.2 alleging fraudulent sale deed and criminal offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the controversy was purely civil in nature and the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of court. The court accepted the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 were justified in a matter that was purely civil in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the controversy was purely civil in nature and should be addressed in the civil suit. The criminal proceedings were deemed to be an abuse of the process of court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel.
2. Leave granted.
3. The order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior dismissing application preferred by the appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is presently under challenge.
4. On 16.03.2011 Civil Suit No.14A of 2011 was filed by the appellant in the Court of District Judge, Gwalior praying, inter alia, following reliefs:
(a) After decreeing the suit of plaintiff, kindly declare in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant No.1, that on the basis of Sale Deed dated 5th February, 2007 and on the basis of entries in Revenue Records, the plaintiffs are possession holder and title holder of land bearing Survey No.1221/1 Min-1 Rakba 0.084 hect., 1222 Min-1 Rakba 0.042 hect. and Survey No.1531 Rakba 0.272 Hect., situated in village Khurairi, Pargana & Distt.Gwalior, and they have valid possession over the land in dispute and the land which has been purchased by the defendant No.1, be declared as different from the lands of plaintiffs.
Kindly issue permanent injunction to this effect that restrain defendant no.1 to this effect that defendant no.1 himself or through his agents etc. shall not interfere in the title, and possession of plaintiffs in any manner and defendant no.1 be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land in dispute."
5. An order of Interim relief was granted in favour of the appellant and the suit is still pending.
6. Fifteen days thereafter, a criminal complaint was filed by respondent No.2 herein, alleging that Nattharam, Santosh Badamo and Sampatiya got a sale deed done fraudulently from Ashok Singh, Bhujbal Singh, Pratap Bhanu Yadav, Albel Singh and Arvind Singh and had committed offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. An FIR No.157 of 2011 was registered.
7. The submissions of the appellant that the entirety of the matter was nothing but a civil dispute and that the criminal proceedings were wrongly initiated by respondent No.2 were rejected by the High Court.
8. We have heard learned counsel and are satisfied that the controversy in question is purely civil in nature which will be gone into the suit and the present criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 are nothing but an abuse of the process of Court.
9. We, therefore, accept this appeal and quash the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2, namely, FIR No.157 of 2011 with P.S. Murar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.
10. The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms.
11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
