1987 Supreme(Raj) 596
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.K.Sharma, J.
Ashwani Kumar and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. App. No. 710 of 1986.
Decided On : 3-04-1987
Criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue when the matter is of a civil nature and civil suits are pending between the parties, as it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - COGNIZANCE - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - CIVIL NATURE OF DISPUTE - FORGED DOCUMENTS - PENDING CIVIL SUITS - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT:
Fact of the Case:
Shiv Singh filed three complaints against the petitioners and others alleging forgery of agreements to sell land and other offenses. The complaints were sent to the police station for investigation, and final reports were submitted in two of the cases, which were accepted by the Magistrate. Despite this, Shiv Singh filed a third complaint on the same facts, and the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the order of cognizance in two separate miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue as the matter was of a civil nature and civil suits were pending between the parties. The court found that the agreements to sell, which were alleged to be forged, were being challenged in the civil suits, and the issue of their validity would be decided in those proceedings. The court also noted that there was no prima facie case against the petitioners and that the order of taking cognizance was not correct.
Issues: 1. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed when the matter is of a civil nature and civil suits are pending between the parties? 2. Whether the order of taking cognizance was correct when there was no prima facie case against the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on several precedents to establish the principle that criminal proceedings should not be initiated in matters of a civil nature, especially when civil suits are pending between the parties. The court held that it is an abuse of the process of the court to prosecute innocent persons in cases where there is no chance of conviction. 2. The court also held that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners without considering the final reports submitted by the police in the previous complaints. The court found that there was no prima facie case against the petitioners and that the order of taking cognizance was not justified.
Final Decision: The court allowed both miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioners and quashed the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance against them. The criminal proceedings in both cases were quashed.
JUDGMENT
1. - Both these miscellaneous petitions are with regard to the same land, the main contesting parties are the same ; and in both the petitions, a common question of law is involved. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Shivsingh non-petitioner filed a complaint on 28th May, 85 against the petitioners and one Harindrapal Singh, in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur City, Jaipur, which is No. 79/85. That complaint is attached to Misc. Petition No. 31 /86 as Annexure-4. Prior to this complaint, Shiv Singh had filed a complaint against the petitioners on 19th March 84 That complaint was sent to police station u/s. 156, Cr. P C., and FIR No 79/84 was registered there. On 19th March, 84, on the same facts, Shiv Singh filed a other complaint which was also sent to police station u/s. 156, Cr. P. C., and on its basis, FIR Ho. 80/84 was registered. The police investigated the matter, and in FIR 79/84, submitted the final report which is attached as Annexure-1 to Misc. Petition No. 31/86. In FIR No- 80/84. also the police submitted its final report. Against that final report, Shiv Singh filed a protest petition on 6th Nov., 84, which was dismissed. Thus the final report in FIR No. 80/84, was also accepted. There after, Shiv Singh, on the same facts filed a third complaint on 28th May, 85 in the court of ACJM, Jaipur u/s. 406 419, 420, 467, 469, 471 & 120 B, IPC (Annexure-4). The learned Magistrate recorded statements u/s s. 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance against the petitioners on 20th Nov., 85. That order of taking cognizance has been challenged in Misc. Petition No. 31/86.
3. Shiv Singh also filed a complaint against Harindrapal Singh, Smt. Rooplata, Inderjeetsingh Jiwansingh, Ashwanikumar Ashwamegh kumar, Rambux and H. S Joshi. This complaint was registered as No. 29/86, which is attached as Annexure-1 to Misc. petition No. 710/86. This complaint was also with regard to the same land and for the same offences for which the earlier complaint was filed by Shivsingh. and on which, cognizance has taken, which has been challenged in Misc. petition No. 31/86. In this complaint, statements u/ss 200 & 202 Cr. P. C. were recorded and vide order dated 22nd Sept, 1986, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused persons, which has been challenged by the petitioners in Misc. Petition No. 710/86.
4. It is now necessary here to mention certain facts of the case, for deciding both the petitions which have been alleged by the petitioners. There are three important documents which are agreements to sell the first agreement to sell is dated 30th April, 1981 in between Harindarapal Singh & Jiwansingh the second one is dated 10th Feb., 1982, executed by Jiwansingh, Ashwani Kumar, and Shivsingh; and the third one is dated 21st March, 1985 between Shivsingh and Ashwanikumar, Jiwan Singh and Ashwameghkumar.
5. Mr. R.N. Surolia, the learned counsel for non-petitioner Harindarapal Singh has mentioned that Th. Jiwan Singh is the khatedar of the land in dispute. He had taken loan from Bank of Baroda, Branch power house Road, Jaipur, mortgaging his agricultural fields and also hypothecating his agricultural equipments, machinery, articles etc. as security against the said loan for the repayment of which, his both the sons, namely, Ashwanikumar and Ashwamegh Kumar had stood as guarantors. That loan was not repaid. So Civil Suit No. 5/77 for recovery of Rs. 76,845.27 was filed by the said bank on 8th Feb., 1977 against Jiwansingh and his sons. Jiwansingh had also taken loan from the State Bank of India, Sanganeri Gate Branch, Jaipur, to the tune of Rs. 1.05,225/- on various dates mortgaging his khatedari agricultural land and residential property in Madrampuia Tehsil and other move-ables. Towards that loan, Jiwansingh could repay a sum of Rs 39,102/-, and for recovery of that amount, a civil suit No, 41/79 was filed by the State Bank of India In both the suits, the prayer was for recovery of t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
