TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Maintainability of criminal complaint under Section 482 CrPC: civil element does not bar prosecution; criminal liability requires trial</h1> Scope of quashing under inherent jurisdiction concerns whether criminal proceedings may be terminated at threshold when civil elements exist in disputes ... Jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.PC - maintainability of a complaint - Quashing of criminal proceedings - execution of three registered settlement deeds concerning valuable immovable properties - abuse of process / misuse of criminal process - civil proceedings not a bar to criminal prosecution - cognizable offence - Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases - Whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings against respondent arising out of FIR. - HELD THAT:- Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged documents in relation to a settlement deed will always carry a civil element. Therefore, there cannot be any general proposition that whenever dispute involves a civil element, a criminal proceeding cannot go on. Criminal liability must be examined independently. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to acquittal only upon failure of proof in the trial and not at the threshold jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. To permit quashing on the sole ground of a civil suit would encourage unscrupulous litigants to defeat criminal prosecution by instituting civil proceedings. We are not impressed with the above findings reached by the High Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited [2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT], this Court had made it clear that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, the High Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry into the disputed questions of fact or record findings on the merits of the allegations. On perusal of the above observations of the High Court, we find that the High Court has erred in law by embarking upon an inquiry with regard to the conduct of the appellant and credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint and the FIR. Delay in filing a complaint, by itself, is never a ground for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold. Whether the delay stands satisfactorily explained or whether it impacts the credibility of the prosecution, is a matter of appreciation of evidence before the Trial Court and not for summary determination by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. It is a settled proposition that when a factual foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Where allegations require adjudication on evidence, the proper course is to permit the trial to proceed in accordance with law. In the present case, the issues relating to the state of mind of the executants at the time of execution of the settlement deeds, the role of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the execution and the use of the settlement deeds, the existence of fraudulent intent, and the manner in which proprietary advantage was obtained by them, all require a full-fledged trial on evidence. Appeal is allowed. Issues: Whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 2 of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021 against the accused persons under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.Analysis: The power under Section 482 CrPC is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or where no cognizable offence is disclosed on the face of the FIR. The court examining a quashing petition must take the allegations in the FIR at their face value and avoid embarking upon a mini-trial or resolving disputed questions of fact such as the credibility of delayed complaints, the mental state of executants at the time of execution, or the veracity of documentary evidence. While pendency or result of civil proceedings may be relevant, civil adjudication does not conclusively determine criminal culpability where the FIR, read on its face, discloses dishonest intention, fabrication or wrongful use of documents and other ingredients of the alleged offences. Determinations as to delay, mala fides, or sufficiency of evidence are matters for the trial court after evidence is led.Conclusion: The High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings; the appeal is allowed and the quashing order is set aside, with C.C. No. 2 of 2023 restored for trial in favour of Appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
