Criminal proceedings cannot replace civil remedies; disputes of civil nature don't justify criminal actions, reinforcing that the misuse of criminal law for civil matters is an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Upadhyay, J.

1. The present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 09.10.2015, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Haridwar, in Misc. Application No. 114 of 2015, Raj Narender Pal vs. Islam and others and the order dated 11.11.2016, passed by learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 560 of 2015, Raj Narender Pal vs. State of Uttarakhand and with the further prayer to direct the learned Magistrate to decide the application of the applicant filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on its merit.

2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant sold his truck on 08.12.2014 to the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 3 was the mediator in the said sale; that a notarize agreement for sale was prepared and it was agreed that the respondent no. 4 shall pay the balance installment of finance company and in the condition of failure of installment, a cheque no. 879283 was given to the applicant by the respondent no.4; that after purchasing the Truck the opposite party no. 4 did not pay any installment to the finance company and enjoyed the earning of the Truck; that the applicant after receiving the notice from Finance Company of the Truck deposited the cheque of respondent no.4, which was returned with the reason of signature differ and insufficient fund; that the respondent no. 4 with the collusion of respondent no.3 has cheated the applicant and neither returned the Truck nor paid the installment, which itself clarify the intention of the respondent nos. 3 & 4.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that when no action was taken on the complaint filed by the complainant before the Police authorities, then an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was preferred before the learned Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Haridwar, which was dismissed on 09.10.2015 and the Revision filed against the said order was dismissed on 11.11.2016 by the learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar and aggrieved by the aforesaid Orders, present C-482 Petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned orders have been passed on the premise that the applicant was having a civil remedy and, as such, the criminal proceedings were not maintainable, however, both the Courts below have failed to consider that the civil remedy nowhere bars criminal liability, if prima facie, a criminal offence is made out against any person and if civil remedy is also available to the victim then both remedy can be availed together by the aggrieved person.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- State as well as learned counsel for the private respondents submit that the dispute was of entirely civil in nature and the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., was rightly rejected and the Revisional court was also right while rejecting the Revision as per law as for the civil remedy, the applicant cannot initiate criminal proceedings and that would amount to abuse of process of law.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by learned Courts below. The dispute between the applicant and the private respondents was purely civil in nature and was covered by the terms and conditions of the agreement reached between the parties. Cogent reasons have been given by the Courts below for rejecting the claim of the applicant for initiation of criminal proceedings and this Court under