Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritpal Singh Brar vs Narinder Kumar & Ors on 6 January, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRM No.M-33007 of 2003
Pritpal Singh Brar ...Petitioner
Vs.
Narinder Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
2. CRM No.M-37456 of 2007
Rana Gurjit Singh & Anr. ...Petitioner
Vs.
Narinder Kumar ...Respondents
Date of Decision: 6.1.2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Nemo for remaining respondents.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
As ill-logical as it may seem, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the complainants, to settle their score (civil dispute), by filing the false criminal complaint against the accused, is increasing day by day in our society, mounting number of pending cases in the Courts. The instant case is a burning example of such like cases.
CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -2-
2. As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions arising out of the same complaint, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the relevant facts and Annexures are mentioned from CRM No.M-33007 of 2003 titled as "Pritpal Singh Brar Vs. Narinder Kumar & Ors." in subsequent portion of this judgment for ready reference in this context.
3. The matrix of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the record, is that Sarv/Shri Balaki Ram, Anant Ram, Arjan Ram, Sant Ram and Ram Kumar sons of Ram Kishan, claiming themselves to be the co-sharers in the land in question, agreed to sell their shares to petitioner Rana Gurjit Singh, entered into written agreement dated 24.6.1994 (Annexure R1) and received an amount of ` 2 lacs in cash as earnest money from the proposed vendee in the presence of witnesses. Subsequently, the co-sharers, on receipt of a further sum of ` 10 lacs as additional earnest money, executed another agreement dated 14.7.1994 (Annexure R2). The sale deed was to be executed in the name of the proposed vendee or any other person of his choice on or before 30.12.1994. The co-sharers (proposed vendors) were stated to have further received a sum of ` 5 lacs more as additional earnest money and the period for execution/registration of the sale deed was extended on or before 30.6.1995, by way of 3rd supplementary agreement dated 14.10.1994 (Annexure R3). Thus, the co-sharers were claimed to have received total sum of ` 17 lacs as earnest money as part of sale consideration from proposed vendee. According to the petitioners that due to industrialization of the area, land prices shoot up and the co-sharers wanted to back out from the indicated agreements.
4. Thereafter, the proposed vendees filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the co-sharers (proposed vendors) from selling CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -3- the property to any other person. The same very suit was subsequently amended for a decree of possession by means of specific performance of the contracts of sale. On application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC, the trial Court restrained them (co-sharers) from transferring the suit land in any manner to any body else, except the petitioners (plaintiffs therein) till the disposal of the suit, by means of order dated 9.1.1996.
5. Dissatisfied with the injunction order against them, Balaki Ram, one of the co-sharers, filed criminal complaint, bearing No.11 dated 2.6.1997 (for brevity "Ist complaint") against the petitioners under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC for illegally executing the agreement (Annexure R3).
6. However, the matter was settled between the parties, through the medium of compromise dated 23.5.2000 (Annexure P1), wherein, it was agreed that the suit for possession, by way of specific performance of agreements dated 24.6.1994, 14.7.1994 and 14.10.1994 shall be withdrawn by the petitioners (proposed vendees) and Balaki Ram shall pay ` 20,50,000/-, in lieu of earnest money to them. Consequently, Balaki Ram had issued a post dated cheque, bearing No.SPI/MSB/BB-673391 for a sum of ` 20,50,000/-. In pursuance of the compromise (Annexure P1), the petitioners (proposed vendees) and Balaki Ram on his behalf and on behalf of all the other co-sharers (proposed vendors) as well as their counsel signed and filed the application/compromise dated 19.5.2000 (Annexure P3). On the basis of compromise, petitioner Rana Gurjit Singh withdrew the suit for possession, by way of specific performance of contracts of sale, by virtue of order dated 24.5.2000 (Annexure P2), whereas Balaki Ram made the statement dated 24.5.2000 (Annexure P4) and withdrew his complaint, by means of order dated 20.7.2000. This factual matrix is further admitted by Balaki Ram in his application dated 17.10.2000 (Annexure P5).
CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -4-
7. In this manner, the proposed vendors have returned the earnest money, the proposed vendees withdrew the suit for possession, by way of specific performance, land was released, co-sharers were at liberty to deal with the land in the manner they liked and Balaki Ram withdrew his 1st complaint against all the petitioners-accused. Meaning thereby, all the disputes were already stand amicably settled between the parties, in lieu of the compromise (Annexures P1 & P3), by virtue of orders dated 24.5.2000 (Annexure P2) and 20.7.2000, as described hereinabove.
8. Again, Anant Ram, one of the co-sharers and brother of Balaki Ram son of Ram Kishan filed another impugned 2nd complaint (Annexure P6) against the petitioners-accused on the same very allegations and for the same offences, for which, the 1st complaint filed by his brother Balaki Ram stands already dismissed, being compromised, through the medium of statement dated 24.5.2000 (Annexure P4) and order dated 20.7.2000. The JMIC again summoned the petitioners- accused to face trial for the indicated offences, by way of summoning order dated 19.7.2003. During the pendency of 2nd complaint, main complainant Anant Ram had died and his son Narinder Kumar (respondent No.1) was substituted as complainant (for short "the complainant"), vide order dated 22.2.2002 by the trial Court.
9. The petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied and petitioner Pritpal Singh Brar preferred Crl.Misc.No.M-33007 of 2003 (for brevity "the 1st petition"), whereas petitioners Rana Gurjit Singh and another filed separate Crl.Misc.No.M- 37456 of 2007 (in short "the 2nd petition"), challenging the impugned complaint (Annexure P6) and summoning order dated 19.7.2003, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia on the following grounds:-
(i) The complaint is misuse of the process of the court and is being used as a tool to blackmail the petitioner and others in order to save CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -5- themselves of their liability on account of dishonouring of cheque which was given in terms of the compromise.
(ii) That the complaint as well as subsequent proceedings are barred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as it is hit by principle of double jeopardy inasmuch as on identical allegation, the petitioner already stands discharged though on the basis of compromise entered into between the petitioner and the complainant therein who acted on behalf of himself as well as on behalf of his brothers.
(iii) That the proceedings are misuse of the process of the court inasmuch in pursuance to the compromise the complainant has taken advantage of the fact that the suit filed by M/s Rana Leathers Limited was ordered to be withdrawn in terms of the compromise in which the complainant was one of the defendants.
(iv) That the complaint as well as subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed inasmuch as the parties have compromised the matter in the civil court. In pursuance thereto the suit filed by M/s Rana Leathers Limited was ordered to be withdrawn and the complainant through his brothers had given a cheque for a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- which stands dishonoured.
(v) That the present proceedings are misuse of the process of the court as it is a counter-blast to the proceedings initiated by way of civil and criminal proceedings by Rana Leathers Limited.
(vi) That in view of the fact that the predecessor court had already discharged the accused in the same case and that the order having attained finality, no second complaint is maintainable on the same sets of facts and with respect to the same documents alleged to have been forged.
(vii) That the summoning order has been passed without application of mind inasmuch as it gives no reason as to why the allegations made in the complaint and supported by the witnesses who are party to the compromise was to be executed. It is also pertinent to mention here that no explanation has been given as to why the complaint was filed after lapse of more than 8 years and the only explanation given goes against the complainant because the complainant was CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -6- depending upon the earlier complaint in which the petitioner has been discharged.
(viii) That even otherwise in view of the compromise having been entered into between the parties, no criminal proceedings can be initiated especially when the complainant is using the process of the court to harass and blackmail the petitioner to restrain them from prosecuting their lawful remedy.
(ix) That once the complainant had died, the complaint ought to have been dismissed as Sh.Narinder Kumar had no authority to pursue the complaint. In any case without recording the statement of Sh.Narinder Kumar, no summoning order can be issued on the basis of statement made by a deceased person as he cannot be subjected to cross-examination and the statement cannot be read into evidence. Therefore, the summoning order is liable to set aside on this ground alone.
10. The substituted complainant-respondent No.1 Narinder Kumar contested the claim of petitioners and filed the reply, in which, the genuineness of 1st two agreements dated 24.6.1994 (Annexure R1), 14.7.1994 (Annexure R2) and receipt of earnest money in pursuance thereof were admitted. However, the execution of supplementary agreement dated 14.10.1994 (Annexure R3) and payment of additional amount of ` 5 lacs as earnest money was denied. The accused were stated to have obtained the signatures of all the vendors on blank papers. According to the complainant, the sale deed was not completed for want of issuance of income tax clearance certificate. The factum of filing 1st complaint by Balaki Ram, brother of Anant Ram and its dismissal on account of compromise was also admitted, but it was stated that he withdrew the same in collusion with the petitioners. It was alleged that neither any compromise was effected between the petitioners and other co-sharers/vendors nor Balaki Ram was authorized to sign any compromise on their behalf. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that the complainant has reiterated the allegations contained in the impugned complaint (Annexure P6). CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -7- However, it will not be out of place to mention here that he has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the petitions and prayed for their dismissal.
11. Although the 1st petition was filed on 26.7.2003 and 2nd petition on 7.6.2007 in this Court, but the same were placed before me for hearing only on 2.1.2012. That is how I am seized of the matter.
12. At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioners has contended with some amount of vehemence that since the 1st complaint filed by Balaki Ram had already been dismissed as withdrawn on account of compromise between the parties, so, 2nd complaint (Annexure P6) filed by Anant Ram, brother and co- vendor of Balaki Ram on the same very allegations and for the same very offences, is not maintainable. The argument further proceeds that even in any case, all the allegations, with regard to genuineness of the supplementary agreement dated 14.10.1994 (Annexure R3) or otherwise, involved and was subject matter of the civil suit, which has already been dismissed as withdrawn, in pursuance of compromise (Annexures P1 & P3). Therefore, the 2nd complaint filed by Anant Ram was misuse of process of law.
13. On the contrary, learned counsel for complainant submitted that as Balaki Ram was not authorized to compromise the matter on behalf of all the co- sharers/proposed vendors, therefore, withdrawal of 1st complaint by him, would not debar the complainant to file the 2nd complaint (Annexure P6) on the same cause of action, which is very much maintainable.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at quite some length, having gone through the legal position and record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petitions deserve to be accepted in this context.
15. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent- complainant that such dispute can simultaneously be decided by the civil as well as CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -8- criminal Courts and 2nd complaint is maintainable, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
16. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to crux of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in cases M.S.Sheriff and another v. State of Madras and others 1954 AIR (SC) 397; Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal 2001 AIR (SC) 3846; K.G.Premshanker v. Inspector of Police and Anr. 2002 AIR (SC) 3372; Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. 2005 AIR (SC) 2119 and Smt.Rumi Dhar v. State of West Bengal and another 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 704, relied on behalf of complainant-respondent, that no hard and fast rule, in regard to the filing of criminal complaint and civil suit, can be laid down. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts, but the possibility of conflicting decision in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration for quashing the proceedings. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of the Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. It was also observed that mere pendency of the civil suit is not always a good ground for quashing the criminal proceedings because the unscrupulous litigants, apprehending criminal action against them, would be encouraged to frustrate the course of justice and law by filing suits with respect to the documents intended to be used against them after initiation of criminal proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings. At the same time, it was also held that "the High Court should be slow in interfering with the proceedings at the initial stage merely on the ground of pendency of civil suit." Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the complainant-respondent in the instant controversy in this connection.
17. The bare perusal of record would reveal that having settled all the disputes, in the manner detailed hereinbefore, strange enough, Anant Ram, co- CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -9- vendor and brother of Balaki Ram again filed the 2nd impugned complaint (Annexure P6) on the same very allegations and for the same very offences, in which, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial by the trial Magistrate.
18. Such thus being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in these petitions is, as to whether the 2nd complaint on the same very allegations/grounds is maintainable against the petitioners-accused or not or such civil dispute can be the subject matter of criminal complaint.
19. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, the answer must obviously be in the negative, as the 2nd criminal complaint after dismissal of 1st complaint (defined under section 2(d) Cr.PC), on the same very allegations and for the same very offences, in regard to civil dispute is not maintainable in this relevant direction.
20. As is evident from the record, that Sarv/Shri Balaki Ram, Anant Ram, Arjan Ram and Sant Ram sons of Ram Kishan, agreed to sell their shares to the extent of 5803/7610th, whereas their brother Ram Kumar to the extent of 1807/7610th share of land measuring 74 Biswas 8 Biswas, situated within the revenue estate of village Gholu Majra, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala to petitioner Rana Gurjit Singh (proposed vendee), entered into written agreement dated 24.6.1994 (Annexure R1) and received an amount of ` 2 lacs in cash as earnest money. Subsequently, they (proposed vendors), on receipt of a further sum of ` 10 lacs as additional earnest money, executed another agreement dated 14.7.1994 (Annexure R2). The sale deed was to be executed in the name of the proposed vendee or any other person of his choice on or before 30.12.1994. They were claimed to have received a further sum of ` 5 lacs as additional earnest money and the period for execution/registration of the sale deed was extended on or before 30.6.1995, by means of 3rd supplementary agreement dated 14.10.1994 (Annexure CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -10- R3). Thus, the co-sharers were claimed to have received the total sum of ` 17 lacs as earnest money as part of sale consideration from the proposed vendee. According to the petitioners that due to industrialization of the area, land prices shoot up and the co-sharers wanted to back out from the agreements.
21. Faced with the situation, the proposed vendees filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining them (proposed vendors) from selling the property to any other person. The same very suit was subsequently amended for a decree of possession, by way of specific performance of the contracts of sale. In the wake of application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC, the trial Court restrained the co-sharers (proposed vendors) from transferring the suit land in any manner to any body else, except the petitioners (plaintiffs therein) till the disposal of the suit, by way of order dated 9.1.1996.
22. Aggrieved by the order of injunction against them, Balaki Ram, one of the co-sharers, filed 1st criminal complaint, bearing No.11 dated 2.6.1997 against the petitioners under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, claiming that the 3rd supplementary agreement (Annexure R3) was bogus. Ultimately, the matter was settled between the parties, through the medium of compromise (Annexure P1) wherein, it was agreed that the suit for possession, by virtue of specific performance of all the three agreements (Annexures R1 to R3) shall be withdrawn by the petitioners (proposed vendees) and Balaki Ram shall pay/return ` 20,50,000/-, in lieu of earnest money to them. Thereafter, Balaki Ram had issued a post dated cheque SPI/MSB/BB-673391 for a sum of ` 20,50,000/-. On the basis of compromise (Annexure P1), Balaki Ram on his behalf and on behalf of all the other co-sharers (proposed vendors) as well as their counsel signed and filed the application/compromise dated 19.5.2000 (Annexure P3), which, in substance, was as under:-
CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -11-
1. That M/s Rana Leathers Ltd. and Rana Gurjit Singh had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of a agreement dated 24.6.94 and 14.7.94 in this Hon'ble Court against the defendants which is fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs. The respectable of the society have got the compromise effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants and it is agreed by the defendants that in lump sum they will return the amount of Rs.20,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs fifty thousand only) by 18.9.2000 positively and in lieu of the amount of Rs.20,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs fifty thousand only), Shri Balaki Ram defendant had issued a cheque No.SPI/MSB/BB-673391 for a sum of Rs.20,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs fifty thousand only) as post-dated cheque and this amount shall be paid by 18.9.2000. In the event of failure on the part of the defendants, Shri Rana Gurjit Singh would be entitled to present the cheque before the bank for encashment and to take legal action against Balaki Ram who has issued the cheque today (19.5.2000).
The suit filed by M/s Rana Leathers Ltd. and Rana Gurjit Singh against Balaki Ram and others shall be dismissed as withdrawn and no action in respect of agreements dated 24.6.1994, 14.7.1994 and 14.10.1994 shall be taken by Rana Gurjit Singh and M/s Rana Leathers Ltd. against the defendants and the plaintiffs shall not claim any right on the basis of these agreements.
2. That the defendants shall be at liberty to dispose of the property in any manner in which they like and the plaintiffs have relinquished their rights in lieu of the amount of Rs.20,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs fifty thousand only) for which Balaki Ram, defendant has issued post-dated cheque on 19.5.2000.
It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the compromise having been effected between the parties, the suit filed by M/s Rana Leathers Limited, be dismissed as withdrawn.
Dated: 19.5.2000 Submitted by
Defendants (Rana Gurjit Singh)
1. Balaki Ram Through counsel
Rakesh Kumar Chowdary
Advocate Rajpura
19.5.2000
2. Arjan Ram Signed by Through counsel
(Sh.Gurmukh Dass)
Advocate-Rajpura
3. Sant Ram Balaki Ram
4. Anant Ram
5. Ram Kumar"
CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -12-
23. In pursuance of said compromise (Annexures P1 & P3), suit for possession by means of specific performance of contracts of sale was withdrawn by petitioner Rana Gurjit Singh (plaintiff therein), vide order dated 24.5.2000 (Annexure P2). At the same time, Balaki Ram made the statement dated 24.5.2000 (Annexure P4) that "I withdraw the complaint as the respectables of the society have got compromised effected and Rana Gurjit Singh being Director of M/s Rana Leathers Limited has relinquished his rights in respect of the land for which the agreements are stated to have come in existence. As such I withdraw the complaint." Hence, his 1st complaint was dismissed as withdrawn as well, vide order dated 20.7.2000, which is as under:-
"Present: Complainant with counsel.
All the accused on bail, with counsel. On 24.5.2000 the complainant has already made statement that he does not want to pursue with the present complaint. As such the present complaint titled as Balaki Ram Vs. Rana Gurjit Singh is hereby dismissed as withdrawn, and accused are discharged. On the application filed by Rana Gurjit Singh separately, his passport which is attached with the file is also ordered to be returned on proper receipt."
24. This factual matrix is further admitted by Balaki Ram in his application dated 17.10.2000 (Annexure P5). Therefore, the proposed vendors have returned the earnest money, the proposed vendees withdrew their suit for possession, by way of specific performance, land was released, the co-sharers were free to deal with the land in the manner they liked and Balaki Ram withdrew his 1st complaint against the petitioners-accused. In this manner, all the disputes stand amicably settled between the parties, in view of the compromise (Annexures P1 & P3) and orders (Annexures P2 & P4) as depicted hereinbefore.
25. Meaning thereby, once it is duly proved on the record that the parties had already settled their civil and criminal disputes, in lieu of compromise (Annexures P1 & P3) and by virtue of order (Annexure P2) passed in the civil suit and statement (Annexure P4) made by Balaki Ram in the 1st criminal complaint, CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -13- then, the 2nd criminal complaint filed by Anant Ram on the same very allegations and for the same very offences against the petitioners at this belated stage, is not at all legally maintainable, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
26. The next feeble contention of learned counsel for complainant- respondent that since Balaki Ram was not authorized on behalf of all the co- sharers to settle the dispute, so, the 2nd complaint by the other co-sharers is maintainable, also lacks merit.
27. As indicated earlier, the perusal of compromise deed (Annexure P1) and application (Annexure P3) would reveal that the compromise was effected between the petitioners (plaintiffs therein) and all defendants (co-sharers therein), including Anant Ram and all the co-sharers (defendants) agreed that they will return the amount of ` 20,50,000/- as earnest money in lump sum by 18.9.2000. The compromise deed (Annexure P3) is signed by Balaki Ram on his behalf and on behalf of all other co-sharers (vendors) as well and their counsel on behalf of all the defendant/co-sharers. The complainant did not challenge the decision of dismissal of 1st criminal complaint filed by Balaki Ram or the civil suit decided on the basis of compromise in any higher forum or civil court. Therefore, the compromise by Balaki Ram and their counsel on behalf of all co- sharers/defendants, would be binding on them, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Employers in relation to Monaharbahal Colliery Calcutta v. K.N.Mishra and others 1975 AIR (SC) 1632; R.Rajeshwari v. H.N.Jagadish 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 171 and Nalini Shankaran and Ors. V. Neelkanth Mahadeo Kamble and Ors. 2007(12) SCC 90.
28. Not only that, there is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. The conspectus of the dispute between the parties is as to whether the agreement to sell dated 14.10.1994 (Annexure R3) is genuine or otherwise? It is not a matter of dispute that all the co-sharers/vendors have CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -14- admitted the genuineness and receipt of earnest money, in lieu of 1st two agreements to sell (Annexures R1 & R2) and Balaki Ram had already paid the entire earnest money received on account of all the three agreements (Annexures R1 to R3) to the proposed vendees. In that eventuality, whether the supplementary agreement (Annexure R3) is genuine or not is purely a civil dispute, which can only be decided by the civil Court. Moreover, the supplementary agreement (Annexure R3) was also the subject matter of civil suit, which was dismissed as withdrawn, in view of compromise (Annexures P1 & P3), by means of order (Annexure P2).
29. Sequelly, if the compendium of the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact of settlement of dispute between the parties, on the basis of compromise deeds (Annexures P1 & P3) and dismissal of 1st criminal complaint, vide statement dated 24.5.2000 (Annexure P4) and order dated 20.7.2000, are put together, then, to me, the conclusion is inescapable and irresistible that original complainant Anant Ram filed the instant false criminal complaint (Annexure P6) against the petitioners in order to wreck vengeance. It is now well-recognized principle of law that the matter, which essentially involved the dispute of civil nature cannot legally be allowed to become subject matter of criminal proceedings. Otherwise, there will be no end of unwarranted litigation and it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the petitioners in this relevant behalf. The complainant cannot possibly be permitted to execute a non-existent civil court decree by putting pressure of criminal complaint (Annexure P6) on the petitioners.
30. An identical question came to be decided in case Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Others (2006)6 SCC 736 and Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned about a growing tendency of the people to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases and noticed the prevalent impression that since the civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -15- of lenders/creditors, so, the people have started to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying the pressure through criminal prosecution. It was observed that "such effort should be deprecated and discouraged. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others 2008(1) SCC(Crl.) 259 wherein it was held that the veracity of the facts alleged by the complainant can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and documents by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and if the dispute in question is purely of a civil nature, in that eventuality, the initiation of criminal proceedings by the complainant against the accused is clearly an abuse of process of the Court.
31. Moreover, the same very view was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Joseph Salvaraja v. State of Gujarat and others (2011) 3 SCC (Crl.) 23, in which, it was ruled as under:-
"In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation. In such type of cases, it is necessary to draw a distinction between civil wrong and criminal wrong as has been succinctly held by this Court in Devendra v. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 495, in which, it was held (para 27) that a distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out."
32. Therefore, the contrary submissions of counsel for complainant- respondent "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances as the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
CRM Nos.M-33007 of 2003 & 37456 of 2007 -16-
33. Thus, seen from any angle and once having settled all the disputes between the parties in the wake of compromise (Annexures P1 and P3), as discussed hereinabove, to my mind, the 2nd criminal complaint (Annexure P6) on the same very allegations and for the same very offences against the petitioners- accused involving purely a civil dispute is sheer and complete misuse/abuse of process of criminal law and is not maintainable.
34. Likewise, the summoning Magistrate has just ignored these vital aspects of the matter with impunity and summoned the petitioners as accused in a very routine manner, which is not legally permissible. Therefore, to me, the impugned complaint (Annexure P-6) and the summoning order dated 19.7.2003 deserve to be set aside.
35. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petitions are accepted. Consequently, the impugned criminal complaint (Annexure P6) and summoning order dated 19.7.2003 are hereby quashed. The petitioners (in both the petitions) are accordingly discharged from the criminal proceedings and are set at liberty.
6.1.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No