SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1046

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Mahendra Singh, son of Late Teja Singh and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Anr. - Opp. Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 1308 of 2022
Decided On : 28-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mahesh Kr. Sinha.
For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha.

Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings are not used for settling civil disputes.

Headnote:

Abuse of Process of Law - Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code - Section 406/419/420/120B/34 - Summary: The court quashed the criminal proceedings, citing that the dispute was purely civil and an abuse of process of law. The court relied on legal principles that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and that criminal courts should ensure that proceedings are not used for settling civil disputes. The court found that the offences alleged were not made out and the entire criminal proceeding was quashed and set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were accused of not executing a sale deed for a land agreement entered into 28 years ago. They argued that the dispute was purely civil and an abuse of process of law.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the offences alleged were not made out and the entire criminal proceeding was quashed and set aside.

Issues: Whether the dispute was purely civil and an abuse of process of law, and whether the offences alleged were made out.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and that criminal courts should ensure that proceedings are not used for settling civil disputes.

Final Decision: The entire criminal proceeding was quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. Though notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2, yet no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 42 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/419/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code consequent upon the complaint case being P.C. Case No. 685 of 2021 filed by the complainant being forwarded to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.

4. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners entered into an agreement for sale of their land with the mother of the complainant in writing on 17.12.1994 after receiving the advance amount of Rs.30,000/- but the petitioner no.1 in connivance with the petitioner no.2 did not execute the sale deed in respect of the land. The mother of the complainant filed Title Suit No. 21 of 1996 against the petitioner no.1. The Munsif, Seraikella decreed the suit directing the petitioner no.1 to execute a registered sale deed. The petitioner no.1 preferred Title Appeal No. 2 of 1999 before the District Judge, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal. The petitioner no.1 at the instance of petitioner no.2 preferred Second Appeal No. 24 of 2001 which was also dismissed. After that, the mother of the complainant approached the petitioners to execute the registered sale deed but they are not executing the registered sale deed. After the demise of the mother of the complainant, the complainant also approached the petitioners to execute the sale deed but they are not executing the sale deed even though the complainant issued a notice. The complainant filed the complaint case which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the F.I.R. of this Case has been registered.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is out and out a civil dispute. It is next submitted that decree has been passed in favour of the mother of the complainant but the learned Munsiff, Seraikella dropped the execution case no.6 of 1999 filed by the mother of the complainant by holding that the decree was a nullity. It is then submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and as an afterthought, filing this criminal proceeding, 28 years after the alleged occurrence is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of having any intention to deceive the informant or his mother at the time of alleged entering into the agreement for sale with her and except for the allegation of being in criminal conspiracy, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner no.2.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vinod Natesan v. State of Kerala, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 401 in para -11 of which the Hon’ble Court interalia has held as under:

“11. Insofar as the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-party in person that initially the learned Judge dismissed the application and, thereafter when the judgment was dictated and pronounced, the learned Judge has allowed the application and, therefore, the impugned judgment [Tomy Mathew v. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 33330] and order passed by High Court is required to be quashed and set aside is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. What is produced as P-45 is the docket of the file, which does not bear the signature of the learned Judge. Therefore, it cannot be said that initially the learned Judge dismissed the petition and, thereafter, when the judgment was pronounced the order was changed and the application was allowed. Even

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top