Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Ab. Majeed Bhat & Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
UT of J&K & Ors. – Respondents
CRM(M) No. 218 of 2021 & CrlM No. 827 of 2021
Decided On : 21-07-2022
Criminal Proceedings - Dispute of Civil Nature - Cr.P.C 156(3) - IPC 420/506 - [LAND DISPUTE] - [Cr.P.C 156(3), IPC 420, IPC 506] - The court analyzed the nature of the dispute between the parties and referred to the principles established in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. to determine the circumstances under which criminal proceedings can be initiated in contractual matters. The court emphasized that a civil dispute does not automatically give rise to criminal proceedings and highlighted the need to establish dishonest intention for the offence of cheating under IPC 420. The court also noted the lack of specific particulars for the offence of criminal intimidation under IPC 506 and discouraged the use of criminal proceedings to settle purely civil disputes. Ultimately, the court quashed the impugned FIR and associated proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The private respondents alleged that they purchased land from the petitioners, who refused to execute the sale deed and assaulted them. The trial Magistrate directed an inquiry under Cr.P.C 156(3), leading to the registration of the impugned FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature, as evidenced by the ongoing civil suits related to the same land. It emphasized the lack of criminal texture to the dispute and the absence of dishonest intention for the offence of cheating under IPC 420. The court also noted the absence of specific particulars for the offence of criminal intimidation under IPC 506. It discouraged the use of criminal proceedings to settle purely civil disputes and ultimately quashed the impugned FIR and associated proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the dispute between the parties warranted criminal proceedings under Cr.P.C 156(3) and IPC 420/506. 2. Whether the impugned FIR and associated proceedings should be quashed due to the civil nature of the dispute and lack of criminal texture.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles established in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. to determine the circumstances under which criminal proceedings can be initiated in contractual matters. It emphasized the need to establish dishonest intention for the offence of cheating under IPC 420 and the requirement for specific particulars for the offence of criminal intimidation under IPC 506. The court discouraged the use of criminal proceedings to settle purely civil disputes and exercised its powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the impugned FIR and associated proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned FIR and associated proceedings were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 12.07.2021 passed by learned Special Mobile Magistrate(Sub-Judge), Budgam (hereinafter referred to as the trial Magistrate), whereby a direction has been issued to SHO, P/S, Budgam, to enquire the matter relating to the complaint filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the private respondents) against the petitioners in terms of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Challenge has also been thrown to FIR No. 208/2021 for offences under section 420/506 of IPC registered with Police Station, Budgam, pursuant to the aforesaid order of the learned trial Magistrate.
2. It appears that the private respondents had filed a complaint before the learned trial Magistrate alleging therein that they have purchased land measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas falling under Survey Nos. 67, 68 and 69situated at Gulwanpora Budgam for an agreed sale consideration of Rs. 1,38,70,000/- from the accused/petitioners herein. It was further averred that the accused/petitioners have received a sum of Rs.1,13,70,000/- from the private respondents and that it was agreed between the parties that the balance amount of Rs. 25.00 lacs shall be paid by the complainants/private respondents to accused/petitioners at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, however, the possession of the land was handed over to the complainants/private respondents. It was further alleged that the accused/petitioners were approached the complainants/private respondents for transferring the land in their name but the accused/petitioners, in order to cheat them refused to do so. It was also alleged that a few days back the petitioners/accused came on spot and they assaulted the complainants/private respondents, restrained them from moving from that place and further made it clear that they will not transfer the land in the name of the complainants/private respondents and also threatened them with dire consequences.
3. The learned trial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to SHO, P/S, Budgam, with a direction to enquire into the matter under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and submit a detailed report. It seems that pursuant to this order, the impugned FIR came to be registered by the police.
4. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR as well as the impugned order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on the ground that dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and civil litigation relating to the same land is going on between the parties. The petitioners have placed on record copy of the plaint filed by petitioner No. 1 in a suit filed against the private respondents wherein the said petitioner has sought a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the same land which is subject matter of the impugned FIR. The petitioners have also placed on record a copy of the written statement that has been filed by the private respondents in the said suit. The petitioners have further placed on record a copy of the plaint filed by private respondents in a suit filed by them against the petitioners whereby they have sought specific performance of contract. The subject matter of the suit is also the same land which is subject matter of the impugned FIR. A copy of the order dated 29.06.2021 passed by Sub-Judge, Budgam, in the suit filed by petitioner No. 1 has also been placed on record whereby an interim injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff in the said suit.
5. The official respondent has filed its response and the Case Diary has also been produced. The private respondents despite service did not choose to contest the case.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 1. I have also perused the material on record including the Case Diary.
7. As is clear from the contents of the impugned FIR and the documents placed on record by the petitioners along with their petition, there appears to be a dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents relating to
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, there must be fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and the absence ....
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for mere breach of contract; there must be evidence of fraudulent intent from the outset for an offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.
Civil disputes can involve criminal elements; thus, the existence of a civil remedy does not automatically justify quashing a criminal FIR.
Criminal proceedings cannot proceed where allegations only constitute a civil dispute without intent to cheat.
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
