Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AFTAB ALAM & RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.
Paramjeet Batra
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2069 OF 2012 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 7720 OF 2011)
Decided on : 14-12-2012
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 34 – Quash - FIR- Appellant respondents and five others at Police Station Kotwali Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar on Respondent inter alia alleged in complaint that he had let out two shops situate in on fixed written conditions - After vacated shops he wanted to run chicken corner in said shops - He appointed appellant as Manager and invested for purchasing raw materials - Written agreement was prepared containing fixed terms and condition business picked up and started fetching profit - According to respondent appellant conspired with others to grab shop - He filed civil suit claiming tenancy - He did not give accounts of the profit appellant and other accused prepared false documents and filed them in the court - According to respondent they threatened him that if he does not take monthly rent owould be killed - He has been told that if he gives then they would vacate shop - Respondent further case in complaint is that accused have grabbed two years –Held, Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice - Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein - Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has be judged by the High Court - A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have criminal texture - But High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence - In such situation if civil remedy available and is in adopted as has happened in this case High Court should not hesitate quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of courtwe have already noted here dispute is essentially about profit of hotel business and its ownership pending civil suit will take care of all those issues allegation that forged and fabricated documents are used by the appellant can also be dealt with in the said suit - Respondent attempt to file similar complaint against the appellant having failed he has filed present complaint. appellant has been acquitted in another case filed by respondent against him alleging offence Section Possession of shop question has also been handed over by appellant to respondent - In such situation in our opinion continuation of the pending criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. The High Court was wrong in holding otherwise – Appeal disposed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court emphasized that whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence depends on the facts alleged. It is essential to determine if the necessary ingredients of a criminal offence are present (!) .
A complaint that primarily involves civil transactions may still have a criminal aspect if there is an attempt to cloak a civil dispute as a criminal offence. However, if a civil remedy is available and properly pursued, criminal proceedings should not be continued unnecessarily (!) .
The court highlighted that the core issue in the case was a civil dispute related to business profits and ownership, which is being addressed through pending civil litigation. The criminal proceedings related to allegations such as forgery and fabrication of documents are matters that can be dealt with within the civil suit (!) .
It was noted that the criminal proceedings should be quashed if they are an abuse of the process of law, especially when the dispute is essentially civil in nature and the parties have an alternative civil remedy that is being actively pursued (!) (!) .
The court also observed that the appellant had been acquitted in a related criminal case and had handed over possession of the shop to the respondent, indicating that continuing criminal proceedings in this context would be an abuse of process (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised sparingly and primarily to prevent abuse of the judicial process or to secure the ends of justice (!) .
Ultimately, the court set aside the order of the High Court and quashed the criminal proceedings, clarifying that this decision would not affect the ongoing civil suit, which shall be decided independently and in accordance with law (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT :
Leave granted.
2. The appellant, respondents 3, 4 an one Rajpal are the accused in Criminal Case No. 723 of 2005 (charge-sheet No. 32/2005) pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Respondent 2 is the complainant. The appellant and respondents 3 and 4 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital for quashing of the above mentioned proceedings and for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 22/3/2005 passed thereon by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima against the appellant and the other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”). By order dated 29/09/2011 Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the said petition. The said order is impugned in this appeal.
3. Respondent 2 filed a complaint against the appellant, respondents 3, 4 and five others at Police Station Kotwali Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar on 4/1/2005. Respondent 2 inter alia alleged in the complaint that he had let out two shops situate in Khatima market to Rajpal Singh on fixed written conditions. After Rajpal Singh vacated the shops he wanted to run chicken corner in the said shops. He appointed the appellant as Manager and invested Rs.10,000/- for purchasing raw materials. Written agreement was prepared containing fixed terms and conditions. The business picked up and started fetching profit of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- per day. According to respondent 2, the appellant conspired with others to grab the shop. He filed a civil suit claiming tenancy. He did not give accounts of the profit. The appellant and other accused prepared false documents and filed them in the court. According to respondent 2, they threatened him that if he does not take monthly rent of Rs.750/- he would be killed. He has been told that if he gives Rs.3 lakhs then they would vacate the shop. Respondent 2’s further case in the complaint is that the accused have grabbed two years’ income and materials worth Rs.50,000/. They have also misappropriated an amount of Rs.10,000/- which was given to them in cash by him. According to respondent 2, accused have forcibly taken possession of the shop. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, who took cognizance against the appellant, respondents 3 and 4 and one Rajpal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint discloses civil dispute. A civil suit has been filed by the appellant making similar grievance. It is pending. Since the Civil Court is seized of the dispute, the High Court should have quashed the complaint.
5. It is necessary to note here that office report dated 22/8/2012 indicates that the contesting respondent i.e. respondent 2 was directed to be served through Resident Commissioner vide Registrar’s order dated 5/12/2011. He has accordingly been served. He has, however, neither cared to appear in-person nor has he engaged any counsel. We, therefore, proceed to deal with the submissions of counsel for the appellant.
6. Though the complaint attributes forgery and fabrication of documents to the appellant and other accused and states that the appellant has grabbed the profit of the running business and threatened respondent 2, it appears to us to be essentially a civil dispute. Basic grievance of respondent 2 is that the appellant has not given him accounts of the business. Respondent 2 has made a reference to the written agreement under which the appellant was appointed as Manager to manage his business. The appellant has annexed a copy of the agreement dated 1/1/2002 to the appeal. The agreement discloses that the appellant was to receive 25% of the net profit as salary. The agreement also notes that the appellant received Rs.10,000/- in cash for the purchase of raw materials. Admittedly, the appellant has filed C
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
