Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
Afab Ahmed and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Neelam (Mst.) and Another – Respondents
CRM (M) No. 417 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Criminal Proceedings - Quashing - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Negotiable Instruments Act - Motor Vehicle Act - IPC - [AGREEMENT TO SELL] - [Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138; Motor Vehicle Act, Section 207; IPC, Section 420] - The court discussed the agreement to sell, the obligations of the parties, and the disputed questions of facts. It highlighted the misuse of criminal proceedings to settle civil disputes and emphasized the need for careful scrutiny before issuing process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner No. 2 agreed to sell a truck to the respondent No. 1, who failed to pay instalments. The petitioners took control of the vehicle, and the respondent filed a complaint leading to criminal proceedings. The petitioners challenged the proceedings on the grounds of civil nature, lack of recording the complainant's statement, and ambiguity in the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and the criminal proceedings were initiated to harass the petitioners. It noted the disputed questions of facts raised by the parties and the respondent's attempt to enforce civil rights through criminal proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the dispute, recording of the complainant's statement, and the validity of the order issuing process against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes and highlighted the need for careful scrutiny before issuing process. It cited the misuse of criminal complaints for vexatious claims and the requirement of adequate evidence to set criminal proceedings in motion.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings and the order issuing process against the petitioners were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of a complaint, titled, Neelam vs. Talib Hussain and Others as well as the order dated 10.07.2021 by virtue of which, learned JMIC, Billawar has issued the process against the petitioners and the proforma respondent No. 2.
2. It is stated that the petitioner No. 2 is a registered owner of the Truck bearing registration No. JK08A-9569 and vide agreement to sell dated 23.11.2020, the petitioner No. 2 agreed to sell/transfer the aforesaid vehicle to the respondent No. 1. After execution of the agreement, the respondent No. 1 failed to pay a single instalment to the finance company and despite reminder, she did not deposit the instalments and the finance company started reminding the petitioner No. 2-owner that they would seize the vehicle and take steps to proceed against the petitioner No. 2-owner under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Faced with such situation, the petitioner No. 2 himself started depositing the instalments with the finance company against proper receipt. As the respondent No. 1 failed to perform her part of the agreement, the petitioners took control of the said vehicle as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 23.11.2020. The respondent No. 1 with mala fide intention on 24.06.2021 after more than three months, filed a complaint against the petitioners and the proforma respondent before the learned JMIC, Billawar. The learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to SHO Police Station, Billawar to seek report in terms of section 202 Cr.P.C. and after receiving the report from the SHO, Police Station, Billawar, issued the process against the petitioners and the proforma respondent No. 2.
3. The petitioners have impugned the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1 and also the order dated 10.07.2021 on the following grounds:
(a) that the matter is purely civil in nature and the launching of criminal proceedings is not only illegal but a sheer abuse of process of law and further that the petitioner No. 2 is a registered owner of the vehicle and continues to be so till date.
(b) that the court below was under obligation to atleast record the statement of the complainant on oath to satisfy itself with regard to the commission of offence but the same has not been done.
(c) that the order impugned dated 10.07.2021 is absolutely silent with respect to the offences for which the process has been issued against the petitioners and the proforma respondent.
4. The reply has been filed by the respondent No. 1, wherein it has been stated that the petitioners have raised the disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated in a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further stated that when the petitioners and the proforma respondent forcibly took the truck from the possession of the driver of the answering respondent, the complaint was made to Police Station, Billawar. The truck was seized under section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act and then an application was moved by the petitioner No. 1 by portraying himself as registered owner of the said vehicle and the same was released in his favour after furnishing an affidavit before the learned Munsiff Billawar. It is also stated that the answering respondent started paying instalments timely to the finance company sometime in cash and sometimes through online transfer and till the time the truck was forcibly snatched, she had paid four instalments amounting to Rs. 68,000/-. She also claims to have spent of Rs. 1,00,000/- so as to make the truck roadworthy. It is also stated that the statement of the answering respondent was recorded by the learned Magistrate as is evident from order dated 03.07.2021 and thereafter the complaint was sent to SHO Police Station, Billawar under section 202 Cr.P.C. The process was issued only after the report was submit
AI
Misuse of Criminal Proceedings - The judgment established the principle that criminal proceedings should not be misused to settle civil disputes and emphasized the need for careful scrutiny before in....
Criminal proceedings cannot replace civil remedies; disputes of civil nature don't justify criminal actions, reinforcing that the misuse of criminal law for civil matters is an abuse of process.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that repossession of vehicles must be conducted through legal means and not by force, as emphasized in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when disputes between the parties constitute only civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the Courts would not permit a person to be harassed. T....
The existence of civil proceedings does not preclude criminal prosecution when allegations disclose cognizable offences, affirming the concurrent nature of civil and criminal jurisdictions.
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
