नवीनतम
Criminal law machinery can’t be used to wreak vengeance: SC
NEW DELHI [Maha Media]: The Supreme Court has said that the machinery of criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settling civil disputes or to wreak vengeance, while quashing a over two-decade old forgery and cheating case against a resident of Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan. The bench, in a judgment delivered on September 24, said even if the allegations are assumed to be true, they unmistakably arise out of a commercial / contractual transaction relating to loan and repayment, which has been given a criminal colour.
The bench said the case falls squarely within categories (1) and (7) of Bhajan Lal (a decision delivered by the apex court in 1992), namely, where the allegations do not disclose the commission of an offence, and where the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. “Continuation of such prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law and consequently, warrant quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C”, said the bench.
The bench stressed that this court has, in a long line of decisions, deprecated the tendency to convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings.
The bench said in Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. (2006), it was held that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or contractual matters, and that such misuse amounts to abuse of process.
The bench said similarly, in Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others (2008), it was emphasized that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment or private vendetta.
“Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it is manifest that the dispute – concerning repayment of loan money and the alleged coercion in execution of documents – is purely civil in character. The essential ingredients of cheating or forgery are not prima facie made out”, said the bench.
The bench said the institution of multiple FIRs in quick succession, particularly after the appellant had already initiated lawful proceedings, reinforces the inference of mala fides.
“The high court, in refusing to quash the proceedings, misdirected itself in law by failing to apply the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal, and the subsequent authorities referred to above, which uniformly hold that the machinery of criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settling civil disputes or to wreak vengeance”, said Justice Mahadevan, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench.
The bench said the cumulative principles that emerge are: while the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, it is the duty of the high court to intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and criminal colour has been artificially given to it. “Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial”, it said.
The apex court decided to set aside the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court on October 22, 2019. The bench quashed the FIR of 2003 and the consequential charge sheet dated April 2003, pending before the trial court. The bench delivered the judgment on an appeal filed by Ankul Singh challenging the judgment of the high court, which dismissed his application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the charge sheet as well as the consequential proceedings arising out of the 2003, FIR.
According to the appellant, his father Shri Netrapal Singh purchased land admeasuring 8.592 hectares, situated in village Sherpur Mafi, Tehsil Bilari, district Moradabad from one Akil Hussain by a registered sale deed in August, 2000.
After the purchase, the appellant’s father applied for mutation of the property in his favour. The vendor Akil Hussain did not raise any objection before the Tehsildar. However, the Shaher Imam of Bilari with mala fide intent to usurp the property, filed objections alleging that the land was being used for Qurbani. The Tehsildar, Bilari, by order dated April 19, 2001, rejected the objections and directed mutation in favour of the appellant’s father.
The bench noted that the record reveals that within a short span, as many as eight FIRs were registered against the appellant.
The bench said the gravamen of the allegations in the present FIR is that respondent no. 2 / complainant approached the appellant for a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-, but was allegedly advanced only Rs. 1,40,000/-.
The bench noted that it is further alleged that, in connection with the said transaction, an agreement to sell dated 09.11.1998 was executed in respect of a plot owned by the complainant, and that the appellant procured three cheques from respondent no. 2, which, upon presentation, were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Even if accepted in entirety, these allegations disclose, at best, a civil dispute and do not prima facie constitute the essential ingredients of the criminal offences alleged, said the bench.
The complainant claimed that the appellant coerced him into signing an agreement to sell a plot after giving only part of a Rs 2 lakh loan and forced him to issue cheques that later bounced. Singh submitted that the complaint was a “counterblast” to an earlier cheating case he had filed, where the same complainant was arrested.
The apex court noted that prior to registration of the present FIR, the appellant had already initiated proceedings against the complainant, namely a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the N.I. Court, Moradabad, as well as FIR in 2002, in which the complainant himself was arrested.
