- This topic has 8 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In order to cause registration of an F.I.R. and consequential investigation based on the same the petition filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences.
[See the full post at: Usha Chakraborty & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr (30/01/2023)]Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (SC-14/12/2012)
While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 AIR 604) the Apex Court considered in detail the provisions of Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
Exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC (India) Ltd. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC (India) Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : the Court observed as follows :
“13. … 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 noticed a growing trend in business circles to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases.
Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment.
[State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 539] , SCC p. 95)
“8. … Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice
Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.
If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed,
- Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs The State Of Maharashtra (SC-2019)
- State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Anr. 2002 (3) SCC 89
- Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, 2006 (6) SCC 736
- Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta and Ors. 2015 (3) SCC 424
Civil liability cannot be converted to criminal liability
In the case of Binod Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Civil liability cannot be converted to criminal liability and it would amounts to abuse of process of court. Learned counsel also referring to this judgment would contend that the Apex Court has reiterated the principles with regard to exercising the inherent powers to quash the proceedings only in case where the complaint does not disclose any offence.
Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Others v. Devender Anand and Others reported in 2019 SCConline SC 996, wherein the Apex Court has held that when the dispute between the parties is of civil in nature, the initiation of the criminal proceedings by the original complainant is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is further observed that even considering the nature of allegations in the complaint, no case is made out for taking cognizance of the offence and when the case involves the civil dispute and for settling the civil dispute, the criminal complaint has been filed, which is nothing but an abuse of process.
In the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148. – While quashing of FIR making an allegation of breach of contractual obligation criminalization of civil disputes is impermissible.
<h3>High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr..P.C. </h3>
Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 wherein the Apex Court has held that High Court did not examine the case with a view to find out as to whether the allegations made in the complaint prima facie make out the offences. Instead, the importance was given to the fact that the dispute was pending between the parties in the civil Court in relation to a shop as being landlord and tenant, it is essentially a civil dispute between the parties. Further, it is held that High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr..P.C.Apex Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. The State of Gujarat reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104,
Wherein the Apex Court has summarized the principles as to how to deal with regard to the context of challenge to FIR. In this judgment the Apex Court has held that in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offence or not, High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise powers like an Appellate Court. The question is required to be examined, keeping in view, contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. In such a situation, it becomes the job of investigating authority, at such stage, to probe and then of the Court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. Once the Court finds that FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Cr.P.C.
Principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few – Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [1988 (1) SCC 692], State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [1995 (6) SCC 194], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., [1996 (5) SCC 591], State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla [1996 (8) SCC 164], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, [1999 (3) SCC 259], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [2000 (3) SCC 269], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [2000 (4) SCC 168], M. Krishnan vs Vijay Kumar [2001 (8) SCC 645], and Zandu Phamaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [2005 (1) SCC 122].
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 malafides/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 proceedings 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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
