Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash a CJM order directing FIR against petitioners over a land sale agreement dispute with respondent No.2. Holding the dispute civil in nature given criminal colour, and relying on Bhajan Lal and Vinod Natesan, the High Court quashed the CJM's order.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 851 of 2016
---- Petitioners
Versus
---- Respondents
| For Petitioners | : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For State | :Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government |
| Advocate | |
| For Resp. No.2 | : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate |
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16.07.2024
“ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition, and:
2
(I) set-aside/quash the order dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in the interest of justice.
(ii) grant any other order(s)/relief (s)/ direction(s) in the interest of justice in favour of petitioenr in the facts and circumstances of t the matter.”
3
case filed by the petitioners was closed. Thereafter, respondent No.2 made the aforesaid complaint and after due investigation by the police, the said complaint was entertained by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba and ordered the Police Station – City Kotwali, Korba to file FIR against the petitioners. Hence, this petition.
4
nature. A perusal of record would also reveal that complaint and counter complaints have been filed against each other to save themselves from criminal proceedings.
below:-
"10.Having heard the appellant as party in person and the learned High Court of Chhattisgarh advocates appearing on behalf of the original accused as well as the State of Kerala and considering the judgment and order passed by the ellas Phigh Court, we are of the opinion that the learned High Court has not committed any error in quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant. Even considering the allegations and averments made in the FIR and the case behalf of the appellant, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 are at all satisfied. The dispute between the parties at the most can be said to be the civil dispute and it is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute. Therefore, we are also of the opinion that continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused will be an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the High Court has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings. Merely because the original accused might not have paid the amount due and payable under the agreement or might not have paid the
5
amount in lieu of month's notice before terminating the agreement by itself cannot be said to be a cheating and/or having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as alleged. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court."
Sd/Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Prakash
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the CJM's order directing registration of FIR against the petitioners should be quashed where the underlying dispute is civil in nature.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalRelied on¶8
(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
Vinod Natesan v. State of KeralaRelied on¶9
(2019) 2 SCC 401 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Chhedilal Agrawal
Ishwar Singh
State of Chhattisgarh
S.M. Sarangpani
Ramesh Sinha
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
