Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
J. Stalin - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Madurai & Others - Respondent
Crl.O.P. (MD) No. 293 of 2019 & Crl. M.P. (MD) No. 132 of 2019
Decided On : 02-09-2022
Criminal Original Petition - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C - IPC Sections 120(b), 406, 420, 468, 471 - G.O.Ms.No.294 Industries Department - Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1975 - Mediation failure - Dispute between petitioner's association and SIDCO - Prima facie case for sustaining the FIR - SIDCO's admission of ownership - Civil dispute converted into criminal dispute - FIR quashed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in Crime No.173 of 2018, sought to quash the FIR against him for offences under IPC Sections 120(b), 406, 420, 468, 471. The case involved a dispute between the petitioner's association and SIDCO regarding ownership and construction of a shed in an industrial estate. The court considered the prima facie case for sustaining the FIR and the conversion of a civil dispute into a criminal dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second respondent attempted to convert a civil dispute into a criminal dispute by lodging the complaint. It concluded that permitting the prosecution to proceed further would amount to an abuse of process of law and quashed the FIR.
Issues: Prima facie case for sustaining the FIR, conversion of civil dispute into criminal dispute
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others and Mithesh Kumar Sha v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing the categories in which criminal proceedings can be quashed and discouraging the conversion of civil disputes into criminal cases.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the impugned FIR in Crime No.173 of 2018 was quashed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.173 of 2018, dated 26.10.2018 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.)
1.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking orders to call for the records pertaining to the case in Crime No.173 of 2018, pending on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.173 of 2018 pending on the file of the Karuppayoorani Police Station, Madurai. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.173 of 2018, dated 26.10.2020 against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 120(b), 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 22.02.2022, a learned Judge of this Court, after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, referred the matter to Mediation and also suo motu impleaded the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO) as third respondent. But subsequently, mediation report was received as mediation ended in failure.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was the then Secretary of an Association in the name and style of M/s.Madurai Hosiery Industries Association. The said Association was formed for setting up a private industrial estate and in pursuance of the same, the Association had purchased 68.64 Acres of land at Vedathakulam and Vallakundu Village, Madurai. As per the requisition made by the Association and the proposal of the SIDCO, the Government of Tamil Nadu Government has passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.294 Industries Department, dated 23.07.1992, accepting the proposal of Chairman and Managing Director, SIDCO to treat the industrial estate to be setup by Madurai Hosieries Association at Vedathakulam and Vallakundu Village, Madurai on par with the SIDCO industrial estates for the purpose of grant of state capital, subsidy and etc.
5. It is also not in dispute that after formation of the plots, Plot No.111 to an extent of 25 cents was allotted to M/s.Kannan & Kannan and in pursuance of the same, a sale deed was executed and registered vide document, dated 03.06.1993 by the said Association in favour of the defacto complainant, the second respondent herein, in her capacity as the proprietor of the allottee M/s.Kannan & Kannan knitwears.
6. The case of the prosecution is that after the said purchase, the second respondent has become the absolute owner of the Plot No.111 in Madurai Hosiery Industries Association (MHIA) industrial estate; that the second respondent did not enter into any construction agreement with the SIDCO, but the SIDCO constructed a shed in the petitioner's plot by spending a sum of Rs. 9,26,000/- as per the calculation of the petitioner; that the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC) provided construction loan and the amount was spent by SIDCO for the construction of the shed; that the SIDCO ought not to have constructed a shed without informing and obtaining written permission from the second respondent, but anyway the second respondent has accepted her responsibility to pay the amount spent by SIDCO for construction of the shed with some conditions; that the SIDCO after construction of the shed has not informed the second respondent through written communication to hand over the keys of the shed; that the shed was not handed over to the second respondent either by SIDCO or by the petitioner, but on the other hand, the SIDCO Manager colluded with the petitioner and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner had trespassed into the second respondent's property and permitted their henchman to occupy the premises illegally and was getting Rs.1 lakh from the illegal occupants, but showing only Rs.25,000/- per month on record; that the petitioner got wrongful gain to the tune of more than Rs.1 Crore till the date o
The court ruled that criminal proceedings based on civil disputes without clear fraudulent intent are an abuse of process, necessitating dismissal of such charges.
Criminal proceedings cannot proceed where allegations only constitute a civil dispute without intent to cheat.
FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise....
It is well settled that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, it must be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the representation or promise and ....
No prima facie case established for offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust under IPC; petitions allowed and FIR quashed.
The distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences is crucial, with criminal liability requiring proof of dishonest intention from the outset, which was not established in this case.
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
