The main legal point established in the judgment is that a purely civil dispute cannot be given a criminal color, and criminal proceedings cannot lie against the respondents in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has challenged order dated 11th March, 2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the Revisional Court”), whereby the revision petition filed against order dated 20th July, 2015 passed by the learned Municipal Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Magistrate”) has been dismissed. It is pertinent to note here that vide order dated 20th July, 2015 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents was dismissed by exercising his powers under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It appears that the petitioner had filed a criminal complaint against the respondents before the trial Magistrate alleging commission of offence under Sections 406/409/481/420/467/468/120-B RPC. It was alleged in the complaint that on 5th April, 1995, an agreement was executed between respondent No.1 and petitioner, whereby a building was proposed to be constructed as per the specifications, drawings and plans prepared by respondent No.1. A supplementary agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 on 3rd September, 1996. It was alleged in the complaint that in terms of Clause (1) of the agreement dated 5th April, 1995, respondent No.1 had promised to give tenancy rights of 76 garages in the basement, 129 shops in the ground floor, 96 shops in the first floor and 4 commercial halls in the 2nd floor to the petitioner/complainant or its nominee in lieu of consideration of construction of the building by the petitioner from its own resources and costs. It was further averred in the complaint that as per Clause (15) of the agreement, respondent No.1 was not authorized to let out or lease the open spaces, corners, parking etc in the built up area without written NOC from the petitioner.

3. It was alleged in the complaint that the respondents hatched a conspiracy and dishonestly shifted the tenancy rights with respect to the property in question without the knowledge of the complainant. Accordingly, three different lease deeds came to be executed on 18th February, 2012, 26th March, 2012 and 26th March, 2012 in respect of D-Block, 2nd Floor, Shop No.13, Basement Floor and Shop No.14, Basement Floor respectively. It was alleged that by doing so, the respondents have caused wrongful loss to the petitioner, as valuable lease rights in the property in question valuing approximately Rs.3 Crores had been fraudulently transferred to respondent No.6.

4. Learned trial Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence of the petitioner/complainant, passed order dated 20th July, 2015, whereby the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed presumably in exercise of powers under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said order it is recorded that in terms of the agreement dated 5th April, 1995, the disputes between the parties are arbitrable through the mechanism of sole arbitration of Dr. Karan Singh. It is further observed in the said order that in case the respondents-accused have committed any breach of the agreement, they have a remedy to file suit for damages and, as such, offences alleged in the complaint are not made out against the respondents.

5. The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of a revision petition before the Revisional Court, who vide impugned order dated 11th March, 2017 has upheld the order of the trial Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition. While doing so, the Revisional Court has observed that dispute between the petitioner and respondents is in the realm of civil dispute for which remedy is available in the agreement executed between the parties and as such, criminal proceedings cannot lie against the respondents.

6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court as well as the order passed by the trial Magistrate on the ground that the contents of the complaint clearly disclose commission of crimina