Police Must Exercise Heightened Caution When Drawn Into Dispute Involving Unethical Transactions : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 19) observed that police should exercise "heightened caution" while registering a criminal case over a dispute involving unethical transactions between parties in which civil remedies are barred. The police should ensure that the parties are not resorting to criminal law remedies to achieve unscrupulous results in cases where civil remedies are barred.

Setting aside the decision of the High Court which refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused, the Bench Comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the police should be vigilant while investigating the cases where unscrupulous conduct of the complainant and accused appears to eclipse the pursuit of justice.

“As parting suggestions, it becomes imperative to state that the police should exercise heightened caution when drawn into dispute pertaining to such unethical transactions between private parties which appear to be prima facie contentious in light of previous inquiries or investigations. The need for vigilance on the part of the police is paramount, and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse the pursuit of justice.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath observed.

The Court also lamented that the valuable resources of the police are getting diverted to disputes which are frivolous in nature.

"The valuable time of the police is consumed in investigating disputes that seem more suited for civil resolution. This underscores the need for a judicious allocation of law enforcement resources, emphasizing the importance of channelling their efforts towards matters of greater societal consequence," the Court observed.

The Court was dealing with an FIR registered over the alleged failure of the appellant to secure a government job to the complainant despite taking money promising such a job.

Background

In the instant case, an enquiry report submitted by the SHO based on the complaint made by the appellant against the respondent no.6 revealed that the appellant and respondent no.6 were accusing each other of having extracted money for securing job for their relatives. Both the parties had alleged that false complaints were being made against each other.

Interestingly when the Station House Officer required the appellant and respondent no.6 to produce the relevant documents and also the details of the call records and recorded conversations, they failed to provide any such material. Accordingly, it was recommended that the complaint deserves to be closed.

The FIR was registered against the appellant based on the enquiry report, and the High Court subsequently refused to quash the FIR.

The impugned order of the High Court is assailed by the appellant before the Supreme Court.

Arguments

It was contended by the appellant that the the impugned FIR is a counterblast and has been maliciously lodged only to resist the appellant from recovering the amount paid by him to the respondent no.6. It is also submitted that the alleged transaction according to the FIR is of April, 2019 whereas the FIR has been lodged in July, 2022 after more than three years and, therefore, on the ground of delay, the alleged FIR deserves to be quashed.

On the contrary, it was argued by the State as also the respondent no. 6 that the High Court has rightly dismissed the petition as the appellant would have adequate remedy of assailing the charge sheet and also claiming discharge at the stage of framing of charges if the charge-sheet found the guilt of the appellant.

Observation

After perusing the material evidence placed on record and the submissions advanced by the parties, the court noted that the contract entered between the appellant and the respondent no. 6 for securing a job in the government department(s) or private sector is an unlawful contract, and the suit for recovery could not have been filed for the said purpose.

“A reading of the entire material on record clearly reflects that it was totally an unlawful contract between the parties where money was being paid for securing a job in the government department(s) or private sector. Apparently, a suit for recovery could not have been filed for the said purpose and even if it could be filed, it could be difficult to establish the same where the payment was entirely in cash.”

“Therefore, the respondent no.6 found out a better medium to recover the said amount by building pressure on the appellant and his brother by lodging the FIR. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, maybe the appellant would have tried to sort out and settle the dispute by shelving out some money.”, the Supreme Court added.

Claim Submitted By Parties Requires Closer Reflection When There's a Suspicion Over Veracity of Claim

The court observed that the veracity of the claim submitted by the parties requires a closer reflection when the conduct exhibited by the parties involved appears tainted with suspicion.

“In conclusion, certain key observations from the factual matrix warrant a closer reflection. Prima facie, the conduct exhibited by the parties involved appears tainted with suspicion, casting a shadow over the veracity of their claims. The report from the previous inquiry reflects a convoluted landscape and unveils a trail of unethical, maybe even criminal, behaviour from both parties. The unexplained inordinate delay in bringing these allegations to the police's attention despite knowledge of previous inquiry, raises even more doubts and adds a layer of scepticism to the authenticity of the claims. The facts stated, as well as the prior inquiry, reveal a shared culpability between the parties, indicative of a complex web of deceit, and unethical transactions where even civil remedies may not be sustainable.”

Heightened Caution Should Be Exercised by the Police Where Unethical Transactions Are Involved

As the parting suggestion, the court suggested that the police should exercise heightened caution when drawn into dispute pertaining to such unethical transactions between private parties which appear to be prima facie contentious in light of previous inquiries or investigations.

“The need for vigilance on the part of the police is paramount, and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse the pursuit of justice. This case exemplifies the need for a circumspect approach in discerning the genuine from the spurious and thus ensuring that the resources of the state are utilised for matters of true societal import.” the Supreme Court observed.

Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Allowed To Proceed If Instituted With Malafide Intentions Just To Recover Money

Thus, the court observed that the criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of the appellant and respondent no.6 against each other, is manifestly rife with mala fide intentions of only recovering the tainted money by coercion and threat of criminal proceedings, therefore, such criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to proceed further to exploit the time and resources of the law enforcement agency.

“we are of the view that such criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where the object to lodge the FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for punishing the offender for the offence committed but for recovery of money under coercion and pressure and also for all the other reasons stipulated above.”

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal while quashing the pending criminal proceedings against the appellant.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv. Mr. Shivendra Dixit, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Mr. Gautam Narayan, Adv. Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshit Goel, Adv. Mr. Sujay Jain, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv. Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Sethi, Adv.

Case Details: DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. | Criminal Appeal No. 001007 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 129

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment