Back
Flash floods , can't ground cheating case: J&K High Court in school dispute
The has quashed a criminal FIR alleging cheating and outraging modesty, ruling that the dispute between a school manager and the institution's trustees and landlord was fundamentally civil in nature. Justice Sanjay Dhar, while disposing of two petitions, held that flash floods damaging a rented school building cannot constitute cheating, and that a four-year delay in reporting a modesty offence indicated the complaint was a tool of vengeance.
The dispute behind the FIR
The case arose from FIR No.252/2021 registered at , under . The complainant, Gazala Gulzar, who took over the management of Vision Public School in Humhama in , alleged that the school's trustees — Ghulam Mohammad Rather and others — and the landlord, Ghulam Rasool Rather, had duped her. She claimed they concealed defects in the building and that flash floods in caused significant damage. She also alleged that Ghulam Rasool Rather assaulted her in .
The petitioners, represented by and , contended that the complaint was a counterblast to a civil suit filed by the landlord for recovery of rent arrears of over Rs.10 lakh. They argued the relationship was governed by rent deeds, and the allegations of cheating were baseless.
No fraudulent intention at inception
The court scrutinised the essential ingredients of , noting that cheating requires a at the time of the initial transaction. Relying on the 's decisions in and , Justice Dhar observed:
"It is the intention which is the
and in order to hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had
at the time of making the promise."
The court found that the complainant's allegations — that the school's future did not materialise, that flood damage occurred, and that a student's admission was investigated — did not demonstrate any deception by the trustees or landlord at the time the school was transferred in .
Rent dispute, not criminal offence
The judgment noted that the real friction was over unpaid rent. Ghulam Rasool Rather had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.10,02,000, and the complainant herself had approached the civil court seeking a declaration that a rent deed was void.
"It appears that there is a dispute between respondent No.2 and petitioner Ghulam Rasool Rather as regards the payment of rent,"
the court observed, adding that the FIR was filed
"to pressurise the petitioners to enter into a compromise favourable to her."
Modesty allegation: delayed and doubtful
The court expressed serious reservations about the outraging of modesty claim. The alleged incident of was reported only in , with no explanation for the delay. Justice Dhar wrote:
"Having regard to the background of the dispute... it becomes clear that the aforesaid allegations relating to outraging of her modesty have been made by respondent No.2 against petitioner Ghulam Rasool Rather only to wreak vengeance upon him by setting the criminal proceedings into motion."
Civil disputes cannot be criminalised
The court deprecated the growing tendency to convert civil disputes into criminal cases, citing the 's observations in and . It held that allowing the prosecution to continue would be an .
Final order
Both petitions were allowed, and FIR No.252/2021 along with all proceedings emanating from it were quashed. The case diary was directed to be returned to the counsel for the official respondents.
