Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 304
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MALASRI NANDI, J
Shankar Prasad Jain Son Of Sri Om Prakash Jain And 3 Ors - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 2 Ors - Respondent
Crl.Pet. 975 / 2022
Decided On : 13-02-2025
For the Petitioner: MR. S CHAMARIA, MR M M ZAMAN,MR. D DAS,MR A N SARMAH
For the Respondent: PP, ASSAM
IMPORTANT POINT
The court held that allegations in the FIR disclose commission of criminal offences, and the existence of a civil remedy does not preclude criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - FIR for offences under Sections 406, 420, 294, and 506 IPC - Petitioners sought to quash FIR alleging false accusations and civil nature of dispute - Court held that allegations in FIR disclose commission of offences and do not constitute abuse of process - Criminal proceedings not to be quashed merely due to existence of civil remedy. (Paras 2 , 8 , 18 , 20 )
(B) Inherent Powers - The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 are to be exercised with caution and only to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice - Criminal liability cannot be converted into civil liability. (Paras 9 , 19 )
Facts of the case:
The informant lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioners failed to pay for a property as per a sale agreement, leading to threats and assault. (Paras 3 , 4 )
Findings of Court:
The FIR discloses commission of offences under IPC, and the High Court is not inclined to quash the FIR as it does not constitute an abuse of process. (Paras 18 , 20 )
Issues: Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie case of criminal offences or merely a civil dispute. (Paras 12 , 18 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations in the FIR do not solely constitute a civil dispute and that criminal proceedings can coexist with civil remedies. (Paras 18 , 19 )
Result: Criminal petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MALASRI NANDI, J.
Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. P.P for the respondents.
2. By filing this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned FIR dated 06.03.2019 vide Paltanbazar P.S Case No.770/2019 u/s 406/420/294/506 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case is that an FIR has been lodged dated 06.03.2019, by the informant stating inter alia that he is the absolute owner and possessor of a RCC building known as “Parmeswari Building” standing over a plot of land bearing Dag No.1381, 1382 (Old) 2051, 2052 (New) of K.P. Patta No.827 (Old) 1102(New) of Revenue Village - Sahar Guwahati Part II in the district of Kamrup (M).
4. On 17.10.2017, the informant had executed a sale agreement with the petitioners to sell his aforesaid property to them. As per the agreement, the petitioners assured to pay Rs.6,00,000,00/- (Rupees Six Crores only) within a period of 30 days from the date of getting ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the office of the Deputy Commissioner or at the time of execution of final sale deed. It is alleged in the FIR that though ‘No Objection Certificate’ has been obtained, the petitioners had not paid the aforesaid amount as per agreement. It is further alleged that though the respondent no.3 on several occasions approached before the petitioners but they misbehaved him and threatened him that they would not pay a single amount and started avoiding his phone call. On 12.02.2019, when the informant went to the office of the petitioners, they assaulted him by using filthy languages and drove him out from their office.
5. Accordingly, on receipt of the FIR, a case has been registered vide Paltanbazar P.S Case No.770/2019.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offences and the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are false and far from truth. It is further submitted that the aforesaid FIR has been lodged only to harass the petitioners. There is no material evidences available to prove the fact that the petitioners either have any liability to be discharged or the petitioners have committed any misappropriation of such huge amount for their personal gain. Therefore, the impugned FIR dated 06.03.2019, filed by the respondent no.3 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.
7. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners duly discharged their liability and as such, the sale deeds were duly executed in accordance with law and also for this purpose, the respondent no.2 and 3 have given their full support and consent for such execution of deed of sale in favour of the present petitioners. Therefore, it is quite evident that there is no scope left afterwards to raise a liability of Rs.6,00,000,00/- (Rupees Six Crores only) from the present petitioners. Hence, the impugned FIR dated 06.03.2019 vide Paltanbazar P.S Case No.770/2019 is liable to be quashed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the contents of the impugned FIR dated 06.03.2019 in question, clearly reveals that the alleged liability, if so, liable to be paid on account of breach of contract, the proper forum is civil court for raising such issues. It is quite evident that the impugned FIR has been lodged to recover the amount from the petitioners and the criminal court has no jurisdiction to entertain such liability.
9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Apex Court at different occasions reiterated that the civil liability should not be converted purportedly in a way of criminal liability and on such attempt, the innocent persons should not be harassed in the name of fake FIR. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to quash the alleged FIR vide Paltanbazar P.S
