Sec 482 CrPC | Pendency Of Suit Concealed, Cloak Of Criminal Offence Given To Civil Dispute : Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings

The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC when it is found that the attempt was to give a "cloak of criminal offence" to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature.

The Court quashed the criminal proceedings after noting that the application filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C did not satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences and that they were vague. Also, the existence of a pending civil dispute on the causative incident was not disclosed in the application.

Judicial History of the Criminal Appeal

A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar passed the above judgment in a criminal appeal arising out of a judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court. The appellants had approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of F.I.R. No. 189/2017 under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code raising various grounds. The High Court declined to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. holding that perusal of the case diary as also the materials prima facie made out a case for investigation.  

Contention put forth by the Appellants

1. The application under 156(3) moved by the respondent before the Magistrate did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence

3. The complaint is actuated by mala fides

4. The allegations pertain to a dispute which is purely of civil nature, regarding the removal of respondent as the Secretary of a School and from the board of trustees.

5. Respondent has already resorted to civil remedies, and after he failed to obtain favourable orders in the suit, he resorted to criminal law remedies.

Supreme Court's Analysis

At the outset, the Court noted that “there can be no doubt with respect to the position that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution and sparingly”.

Then, the court scanned the application filed by the respondent which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C and found that the existence of a civil dispute regarding the removal of the respondent from the post of Secretary of a School was concealed.

“Then, the question is why would the respondent conceal those relevant aspects? The indisputable and undisputed facts (admitted in the counter-affidavit by the respondent) would reveal the existence of the civil dispute", the Court observed.

Stating that there was a causative incident, the court said that the respondent, “concealed the pendency of the civil suit to cover up the civil nature of the dispute.”

The court then held, “By non-disclosure the respondent has, in troth, concealed the existence of a pending civil suit between him and the appellants herein before a competent civil court which obviously is the causative incident for the respondent’s allegation of perpetration of the aforesaid offences against the appellants….”

“There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that 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. In other words, if such allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged,” the Court held. 

The Court also referred to the precedent Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors (2013) 11 SCC 673 where it was held -"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 the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.”

Connecting the above proposition to the facts of the present criminal appeal, the top court, in the words of Justice CT RaviKumar speaking for the bench, held, “A bare perusal of the said allegation and the ingredients to attract them...would reveal that the allegations are vague and they did not carry the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences...The ingredients to attract the alleged offence referred to hereinbefore and the nature of the allegations contained in the application filed by the respondent would undoubtedly make it clear that the respondent had failed to make specific allegation against the appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature.” 

The court further stated, “The appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue. In such circumstance when the respondent had already resorted to the available civil remedy and it is pending, going by the decision in Paramjit Batra, the High Court would have quashed the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court but for the concealment.”

Judgment

Ordering for the quashing of the FIR against the Appellants the court finally held, “In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants…we are of the considered view that this case invites invocation of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the Magistrate Court in the afore-stated application and all further proceeding in pursuance thereof. Also, we have no hesitation to hold that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances would result in abuse of the process of Court and also in miscarriage of justice.”

Case Title: Usha Chakraborty & Anr. Versus State of West Bengal & Anr. SLP (Crl.) 5866 of 2022

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ravi Sharma, AOR Mr. Shoumendu Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Adv. Mr. Anjani Kumar Rai, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Nandini Sen Mukherjee, AOR Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR

Summary - Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings after noting that the attempt was to give a cloak of criminal offence to a civil dispute. The Court noted that the application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC were vague and did not attract the essential ingredients of the offences. Also, the pendency of a civil suit on the issue was suppressed in the application

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 482 -jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution and sparingly. To wit, exercise of the said power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of process of law - Para 3

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 156(3) -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. In other words, if such allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged - Para 10

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 482- Criminal proceedings quashed- the respondent had failed to make specific allegation against the appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue-coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants - Para 10, 11

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment