Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRASHANT KUMAR, J.
Kishan Chandra Jain and others – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and another - Respondents
Application U/S 482 No.40157 of 2016
Decided on : 09-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajeev Chaddha and Shivam Yadav
For the Respondent: A.G.A. and Ashutosh Vais

IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool for harassment in civil disputes, and courts must prevent abuse of legal processes.

Headnote:
Abuse - Quashing of FIR - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 448 IPC - The court emphasized the misuse of criminal proceedings for civil disputes, highlighting the need to prevent abuse of legal processes and ensuring justice.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, tenants of a property, faced a frivolous FIR from their landlord, who sought to evict them through criminal proceedings instead of civil remedies, alleging threats and illegal activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR was an abuse of process, as the landlord had previously lost civil eviction proceedings and was using criminal law to exert pressure on the tenants.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings initiated by the landlord against the tenants constituted an abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that criminal proceedings should not be used to resolve civil disputes and that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence, warranting quashing.
Result: The application is allowed, and all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 245 of 2007 are quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Prashant Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the records.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.11.2016 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 2985 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 245 of 2007 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 448 I.P.C. Police Station- Feelkhana, District-Kanpur Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are tenant in a property which is a residential house. The complainant herein is a subsequent purchaser of the property and had become a landlord and he wanted to get the premises vacated instead of initiating civil proceeding for vacation of the property. The complainant by abusing the process of the Court had filing false and frivolous FIR against the tenant. An FIR was lodged on 15.11.2007 alleging that when the applicants asked to vacate the property, he abused and threatened them to face dire consequences and also stated that he will install his saw-mill in the property. After lodging of the FIR, a charge-sheet was filed on 09.12.2007. The charge-sheet was challenged by means of an Application U/S 482 CrPC No. 1658 of 2008. This was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.2014 granting liberty to the applicants to file a discharge application which was rejected on 22.11.2016. The applicants have filed the instant application challenging the order dated 22.11.2016 by which the discharge application was dismissed.

4. Mr. Shivam, counsel for the applicants submits that the landlord had initiated eviction proceedings in the year 2006, in which, an order of eviction was passed by the prescribed authority. This order was challenged by the applicants by means of the Writ Petition No. 50797 of 2006 before this Court.

5. While the writ petition was pending before this Court, the instant FIR had been lodged with the allegation that the complainant had asked the applicants to vacate the property and had threatened them. There was no reason for him to ask them to vacate the property when the matter was already subjudiced before this Court.

6. This writ petition came to be allowed on 24th April, 2009 and against which, the landlord had preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) bearing No. 30192 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed on 11.03.2011.

7. He further submits that an allegation was made against the applicants that he has illegally installed a saw-mill in the premises. A proceeding under Section 77 of the Forest Act was initiated against him which was challenged by the applicant and the same was allowed vide order dated 28.02.2009 by the ADJ, Kanpur Nagar which has been challenged by the Forest Department and the same is still pending in the High Court.

8. The counsel for the applicants further submits that the complainant who is a landlord, is abusing the process of law by filing similar cases against the other tenant as well in the same building. The other similarly situated tenant had challenged the similar criminal proceedings initiated by the landlord by means of the Application under Section 482 CrPC No. 27745 of 2007 and the same was allowed vide order dated 04.12.2007.

9. He further submits that the landlord after not succeeding to throw out the tenant has been filing criminal cases against him just to put undue pressure on the applicants. He further submits that the entire proceedings initiated by the complainant is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law.

10. To buttress his arguments, he is placing reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Chandrapal Singh & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Ors, AIR 1982 SC 1238, wherein, it is held as under :

"13. We have now to examine whether in the background of these facts any criminal court would have entertained a complaint of the landlord under Sections 199 and