Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes, as it constitutes an abuse of the legal process.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. A Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.614242 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, New Delhi.

2. It is submitted in the Petition that on 13.01.1984, the legal heirs of Late Sh. K.L. Bahl arrived at a Family Settlement, whereby the house owned by Sh. K.L. Bahl bearing No. A-2, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi was given exclusively to Sh. Gulshan Bahl, one of the sons of Late Sh. K.L. Bahl in exchange of 950 shares of the family Company standing in the name of Sh. Gulshan Bahl, which were given to elder brother Sh. Manmohan Bahl/ Petitioner No.2. In January 1984 Sh. Gulshan Bahl acted upon the Family Settlement and was handed over the Jangpura property while he handed over the possession of 950 share to the Petitioner No.2.

3. On 04.02.1985 Sh. Gulshan Bahl passed away. In the year 2003 family members of Late Sh. Gulshan Bahl sold the house property and took the entire sale consideration without giving 1/4^th share to their mother who was alive at that time. After his demise from February 1985 till September 2010 legal heirs of Sh. Gulshan Bahl, never raised any dispute with the Petitioners.

4. In October 2010 the family members of Late Sh. Gulshan Bahl filed a Company Petition No.104(ND) of 2010 before Company Law Board. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.05.2011.

5. In April 2011 the Petition No. PC 196/2011 was filed by the family members in the District Courts, New Delhi seeking Letter of Administration in respect of 950 shares, which is still pending adjudication.

6. In the year 2016, Respondent No.2 Sh. Vikram Bahl son of Late Sh. Gulshan Bahl filed the present Criminal Complaint. The family members of Late Sh. Gulshan Bahl also filed number of cases on the same subject in various Courts. The present Petition, therefore, has been filed for quashing of the Criminal Complaint.

7. It is submitted that though the Application under Section 156(3) filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 was dismissed vide Order dated 17.10.2014, the Complaint Case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was proceeded. An Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C was filed in the year 2016 by the Complainant seeking directions for production of number of documents relating to the Family Company which not even part of the Complaint Case. Subsequently, when objections were raised by the Petitioners in their Reply, the Complainant/Respondent No.2 gave a statement in the Court that he was confining his Application only in regard to the documents relating to transmission of 950 share of the Family Company which were handed over by Sh. Gulshan Bahl during his lifetime to Petitioner No.2 as part of the Family Settlement dated 13.01.1984. The Application has been allowed vide Order dated 19.08.2020 and the Petitioners have already placed all the documents along with their Application for discharge.

8. It is submitted that the Application for discharge from the Criminal Complaint is pending since 2017, but even the Reply has not been filed by the Complainant. Moreover, it is claimed that disputes raised are basically of civil nature for which several Civil Suits have been initiated by Respondent No.2 before the Company Law Board as well as the Civil Courts. He is a habitual litigant and is involved in Forum shopping and hence, a prayer is made for quashing of the summons issued in the Complaint Case No. 614242 of 2016 titled Vikram Bahl vs. Manmohan Bahl and Another .

9. The Status Report has been submitted on behalf of the State, wherein it is submitted that pursuant to the directions given in the Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, Action Taken Report was submitted, wherein it was noted that the matter pertains to dispute between the family members over distribution of shares of the Company owned by the family. The Complainant had already approached the Company Law Board and Civil suit is also stated to be subjud