IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
K.K. Sharma S/o Shri Devendra Nath – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4840 of 2024
Decided On : 20-08-2024
Quash - FIR - IPC Sections 420, 406 - The court interpreted the arbitration clause in the agreement, determining that the dispute was civil in nature and should not have been registered as a criminal FIR, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractor, faced an FIR for alleged non-construction and overpayment related to a construction agreement that included an arbitration clause.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR was lodged to harass the petitioner and that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration as per the agreement, not through criminal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the FIR registered under IPC Sections 420 and 406 was maintainable given the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disputes arising from civil agreements with arbitration clauses should not be treated as criminal matters, thus quashing the FIR.
Result: The FIR No. 485/2023 is quashed and set aside.
ORDER :
1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:
Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper, be also passed.”
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the factual background of the instant matter is that the petitioner is a renowned architect/contractor. The controversy arose when the complainant lodged the impugned FIR dated 10.10.2023 bearing No. 485/2023, U/S 420, 406 IPC at Police Station, Shayam Nagar, Jaipur. The allegations leveled against the petitioner were that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 executed an agreement dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure-2), for construction of house. The said agreement expounded an arbitration clause which might be invoked in case of any dispute. Shri Om Prakash Agrawal was appointed as the arbitrator.
3. In light of the agreement dated 13.08.2021, the petitioner as well as the arbitrator have exhorted the complainant to fulfill the conditions of the agreement and complete the agreed construction work. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner thereafter performed his duties as per the agreement; the construction is already complete and the respondent No. 2 is already residing in the said property. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned FIR is lodged merely to harass the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that vide order dated 19.12.2023, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed. Subsequently, the bail application before the High Court was withdrawn.
5. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the ratio encapsulated in AIR 2023 SC 1814 titled as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shilpa Jain, and has submitted that when the genesis of the dispute emanates from civil proceedings, however, the same is registered as criminal dispute, the same ought not to have been scuttled at the threshold, and in fact ought to be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law.
6. Upon a perusal of the record, considering the arguments averred by the learned counsel for the parties, and taking note of the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court at this juncture, deems it apposite to note down certain undisputed facts of the instant matter:
6.2 That the parties herein, entered into an agreement dated 13.08.2021, wherein, the terms and conditions qua the said construction is spelled out. Clause 26 of the said agreement, categorically states that any dispute shall be adjudicated via arbitrator, and Shri Om Prakash Agrawal was appointed as the arbitrator.
6.3 That the contents of the FIR state that there is non-construction of a specified portion of the house/said construction and exceeded payment qua the petitioner. Nevertheless, at this juncture, the same prima facie appears fallacious.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter in toto, and taking special note of the fact that the FIR and the dispute in hand pertains to civil jurisprudence, it can be inferred that the police authorities have wrongly contemplated the instant dispute. Moreover, in presence of an arbitration clause in the agreement, the instant FIR is not tenable.
8. Upon scanning of the judgment cited by the respondents it is noted that Shilpa Jain (Supra) is of distinguishable factual matrix, as the matter in hand categorically states the mode of settlement as arbitration, and no such provision has been expounded in the cited dictum.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition. As a result FIR No. 485/2023, registered at Police Station Shayam Nagar, Jaipur wit
Disputes governed by arbitration clauses in civil agreements should not be pursued as criminal offenses.
Point of Law : Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on Accused and with ....
The court quashed the FIR as the underlying dispute was settled through arbitration, rendering the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of process.
Proceedings initiated post-moratorium under the Insolvency Code are invalid, impacting the legitimacy of subsequent criminal actions.
Abuse of process of law in invoking criminal proceedings for a civil dispute.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to exercise inherent power to quash an FIR sparingly and with caution, and to prevent the abuse of legal provisions and secure the ends....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.