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

2024 Supreme(All) 2204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
Ravi Babu And 2 Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 26 Others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6997 of 2022, CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5888 of 2022, CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6389 of 2022
Decided on : 11-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Nadeem Murtaza, Ankit Yadav,Shuchita Singh
For the Respondent: G.A., Pritish Kumar

The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes, emphasizing that the FIR was an abuse of process aimed at coercing payment in a contractual matter.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 352, 406, 420, 447, and 506 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and intimidation were found to be baseless as the dispute was primarily civil in nature regarding unpaid rent and contractual obligations - The FIR was deemed an abuse of process of law, as it sought to criminalize a civil dispute. (Paras 22, 23, 31, 35)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - High Court's inherent powers to quash FIR - The court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment in civil disputes. (Paras 24, 26)

Facts of the case:
The FIR was filed against employees of Decathlon for alleged offences related to unpaid rent and intimidation, stemming from a lease dispute with Rohtas Projects Limited. The petitioners argued that the FIR was a malicious attempt to coerce them into paying rent that was already under dispute in civil proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence and was primarily a civil matter, thus quashing the FIR.

Issues: The main issues included whether the FIR disclosed any criminal offences and whether the dispute was civil in nature.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR was an abuse of the process of law, as it attempted to convert a civil dispute into a criminal one, which is impermissible.

Result: The FIR and all proceedings arising from it were quashed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajat Pradhan, Advocate, Shri Abhishek Awasthi, Advocate, Shri Ankit Yadav and Shri Nadeem Murtaza learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amal Rastogi, Advocate, Shri Pritish Kumar, learned Counsel for the private respondent, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material placed on record.

2. These writ petitions, have been filed seeking quashing of FIR/Case Crime No.0514/2022 dated 03.08.2022 under Sections 352/406/420/447 and 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station-Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar, District-Lucknow

3. As the factual matrix in the above-captioned writ petitions emancipates from the same impugned First Information Report(FIR), these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint by Respondent Nos. 4 to 27, in relation to a premises situated at Rohtas Presidential Arcade, No. TC-G 4/4, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow 226010, Uttar Pradesh ("Premises") leased by Rohtas Projects Limited ("Rohtas") in favour of Decathlon Sports India Private Limited ("Decathlon") for alleged offences committed by the petitioners. It has been alleged in the said FIR that: -

    (i) The respondents had purchased the premises from Rohtas through registered sale deeds.

    (ii) Prior to such purchase by the said respondents, the premises were leased to Decathlon for a period of 20 years.

    (iii) Even after selling the premises to the said respondents, Rohtas used to collect rent from Decathlon and make over such rent to the said respondents.

    (iv) However, since the year 2018, the Directors and employees of Rohtas became unavailable and ran away with entire money of all investors.

    (v) Further, during the same time, Decathlon also stopped paying rent in respect of the Premises, despite repeated demands being made by the said Respondents.

    (vi) On 15 July 2022, the said Respondents got to know from reliable sources that Decathlon had opened a new showroom in the LuLu Mall and shifted their entire goods from the Premises to the said Mall.

    (vii) In such circumstances, the said Respondents found that the Premises was lying vacant and accordingly they proceeded to lock it.

    (viii) According to these respondents, a sum of INR 5 Crores has become due and payable by Decathlon on account of unpaid rent from the year 2018 till July 2022.

    (ix) It has been further alleged that, after these respondents had put lock on their premises, some officers of Decathlon came back to the Premises and forcefully put their own locks on the Store. Upon being opposed, the said officers of Decathlon began to assault the said Respondents. The said representatives of Decathlon were acting on the instructions of the Petitioners and/or other accused persons named in the FIR.

    (x) One of Decathlon's representatives went on to threaten the said Respondents that in the event they continued to demand the unpaid rents, they might end up losing their lives.

    (xi) Thus, it has been concluded in the complaint that Decathlon's employees were planning and intended to embezzle and/or misappropriate the said sum of INR 5 Crores.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the Vibhuti Khand Police Station, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow proceeded to register the impugned FIR for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 352/406/420/447/506 of the IPC against the Petitioners.

6. The petitioners are employees of Decathlon S.A., France and/or its subsidiaries including Decathlon, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 (as amended from time to time) with its registered office at Survey No. 78/10 A2, Chikkajala Village, Bellary Road, Bangalore 562157, Karnataka, India. It is claimed that Decathlon is engaged in retail business of sporting goods and equipment across various cities in India and as far as the lead petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 6997 of 2022 is conc

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