Civil dispute masquerading as criminal case may be quashed when accounts, possession and documents are already in civil litigation.

Criminal proceedings arising from a dispute essentially of civil nature may be quashed in inherent jurisdiction where the real controversy concerns business accounts, possession of premises, and the genuineness of documents already in issue in a pending civil suit. The text notes that earlier attempts to initiate criminal action had failed and the complainant did not contest the matter before SC. On those facts, continuation of the criminal case was treated as unwarranted, and the High Court was said to have erred in refusing quashing, with the proceedings and cognizance order described as an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings arising from a dispute essentially of civil nature should be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The dispute related primarily to business accounts, possession of the shop, and the genuineness of documents relied upon by the parties, all of which were already the subject of a pending civil suit. The complaint also followed earlier unsuccessful attempts to initiate criminal action, and the complainant did not contest the matter before the Court. In these circumstances, continuation of the criminal case was found to be unwarranted, and the High Court was held to have erred in refusing quashing.

Conclusion: The criminal proceedings and the cognizance order were quashed, as their continuation amounted to abuse of the process of law.

---