Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Jayanta Kumar Deb Biswas & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Opp. Parties
CRR 972 of 2020
Decided On : 12-07-2023
CRIMINAL - QUASHING OF COMPLAINT - CIVIL DISPUTE - ABUSE OF PROCESS - INHERENT POWER OF COURT - SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - The court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings that amount to an abuse of the process of the court or are otherwise necessary to secure the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, developers and contractors, were accused of cheating the complainant, the owner of a property, by violating the terms of a construction agreement and selling flats to third parties before delivering the owner's allocation. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging various offenses, including cheating, forgery, and criminal intimidation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute between the parties was essentially civil in nature and that the complainant had already filed two civil suits seeking relief for the same allegations. The court also noted that the petitioners had filed a writ petition challenging the police's refusal to return the title deed to the disputed property, which had been handed over to the bank as security for a loan.
Issues: 1. Whether the dispute between the parties was civil or criminal in nature. 2. Whether the complainant had abused the process of the court by filing a criminal complaint for a matter that was already the subject of civil litigation. 3. Whether the court had the inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court precedents, including Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., R. Nagender Yadav vs The State of Telangana, and Deepak Gaba and Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., which held that the court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings that amount to an abuse of the process of the court or are otherwise necessary to secure the ends of justice. The court also noted that the allegations in the complaint, even if taken at face value, did not constitute the offenses alleged and that the complainant had not provided any evidence to support her claims.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, holding that the complaint and the materials on record were in substance a dispute of civil nature and that the proceeding was liable to be quashed.
JUDGMENT :
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) :
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the complaint being Complaint Case No. 307 of 2018 dated 12.09.2018 and Charge-Sheet in connection with Netaji Nagar P.S. Case No. 307/2018 dated 12.09.2018 under Sections 467/468/471/406/409/420/323/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code (ACGR-4409/2018).
2. The petitioners’ case is that they are Developers and Contractors.
3. The complainant/opposite party no. 2, Smt. Nibedita Pattanayak, wife of Sri Monoranjan Pattanayak filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore being Complaint Case No. SL-879 of 2018 against the petitioners, stating therein that she is the owner of the land being Premises No. 226/5/1, N.S.C. Bose Road, P.O.- Regent Estate, P.S. – Netaji Nagar, Kolkata – 700 092, but she takes all decisions of her said property after discussion with her husband Monoranjan Pattanayak and has also given Power of Attorney to her husband to file the criminal case against the accused persons.
4. Her further case is that she had given a contract to construct a building on the said premises to the petitioner no. 1 vide agreement dated 20.03.1997 and also executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 08.05.1997 registered with the office of Registrar of Assurance-III, Kolkata being No. 8 dated 12.05.1997, for smooth construction of building. The petitioner no. 1 is the sole proprietor of M/s. Globe Construction having its office at P-26, Garia Park, P.O. – Garia, P.S. – Patuli, Kolkata – 700 084 and petitioner no. 2 is the brother of petitioner no. 1.
5. Her further case is that the petitioner no. 1 violated the terms and conditions of the contract dated 20.03.1997 because neither did he complete the construction at his own cost nor did he deliver the possession of the entire owner’s allocation to the opposite party no. 2 before delivery of possession to the intending purchasers of flats of developers allocation. The petitioner no. 1 had to complete the construction by spending a huge amount of money.
6. The complainant then revoked the Power of Attorney on 20.08.1998 and the said cancellation of Power of Attorney was intimated to the petitioner no. 1 through her Advocate vide letter dated 20.08.1998. The petitioner no. 1 herein filed a Title Suit being No. 196/1993 in the 5th Court of Learned Civil Judge, Alipore for registration of Sale Deed through Court and in the said suit the petitioner herein had admitted receipt of revocation of Power of Attorney and also admitted that due to revocation of Power of Attorney he was unable to register the Sale Deed although the entire construction of Flat No. 6 was received by the petitioner no. 1 from the petitioner no. 2. The said Civil Suit is still pending. The complainant has registered the revocation of Power of Attorney in the office of Additional Registrar of Assurances-III on 25.03.2000 being No. 862 of 2000.
7. After a considerable period, few persons of Punjab National Bank, Bara Bazar Branch, Kolkata came to the complainant’s place and put a padlock on the said Flat No. 6 and on being asked, the said persons told that they put the padlock due to non-payment of loan by the petitioner no. 1 and 2 i.e. the accused persons in the said complaint. The complainant thereafter filed a Title Suit being no. 182/2008 before the 5th Court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore for recovery of possession of the said flat and other flats and the suit is still pending.
8. In the middle of June, 2018, the petitioner no. 2 entered into Premises No. 226/5/1/N.S.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700 092 in the absence of the complainant and her husband and entered Flat No. 6 by breaking upon the padlock put by the Punjab National Bank, Bara Bazar, Kolkata.
9. On 25.06.2018 at about 2.30 p.m. the complainant protested about keeping of cars and motor cycles in front of the garage of complainant. The petitioner no. 2 a
AI
The court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash criminal proceedings that amount to an abuse of the process of the court or are otherwise necessary to secure th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court, especially in the presence of pending....
(1) A bonafide criminal case cannot be stifled at threshold by High Court.(2) In order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, High Court cannot act l....
A criminal complaint based on essentially civil disputes, particularly where no prima facie case exists, can be quashed to prevent abuse of legal processes.
Criminal proceedings should not continue if they arise from a civil dispute and lack criminal elements, as this constitutes an abuse of process.
The court emphasized that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases, and the continuation of such proceedings constitutes an abuse of the legal process.
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
