Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. rejected. Court held that since a civil suit for cancellation of the sale-deed was already pending, using criminal proceedings to settle the civil dispute was not warranted per Supreme Court precedents.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113421
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6092 of 2024
Applicant :- Naeem Hashmi Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
"9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited1 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus:
[(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution,
there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed : (SCC p. 643, para 8)
"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may."
10. The Court has also noted the concern with regard to a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The Court observed that this is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court also recorded that there is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. The Court, relying on the law laid down by it in the case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. The Court also observed that though no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law."
and A.M. Mohan( supra ) that criminal proceeding could not be used as a tool to settle a civil dispute.
Order Date :- 16.7.2024 P. Pandey
Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when a civil suit for cancellation of the sale-deed has already been filed.
Whether converting a purely civil dispute regarding a sale-deed into a criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of process.
Whether the rejection of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is consistent with Supreme Court precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Ibrahim and another Vs. State of Bihar and anotherRelied on¶7
Mohd. Ibrahim and another Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751 · Who else cites this
A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and anotherRelied on¶8
A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339 · Who else cites this
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India LimitedReferred¶9
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao AngreReferred¶10
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶10
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] · Who else cites this
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh GillReferred¶10
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] · Who else cites this
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.Referred¶10
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045] · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. Rajendra AgrawallaReferred¶10
State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628] · Who else cites this
Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of DelhiReferred¶10
Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] · Who else cites this
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.Referred¶10
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] · Who else cites this
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of BiharReferred¶10
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] · Who else cites this
M. Krishnan v. Vijay SinghReferred¶10
M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful HaqueReferred¶10
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] · Who else cites this
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.Relied on¶18
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Naeem Hashmi
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Pushpendra Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
