Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

( Per : K.K. Sonawane, J.) 1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of parties.

{2} crapln 3740.14.odt This is a unique case where the Civil Judge (J.D.), while exercising jurisdiction of the Civil Court, dealing with the civil proceeding, i.e. R.C.S. No. 61 of 2014, ventured to utilize the powers of a Magistrate as envisaged under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and proceeded to direct investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. barely on the protest application filed on behalf of the defendants in the suit. 2] The applicant moved the present application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash and set aside the impugned order passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as well as consequential proceeding of FIR bearing Crime No. 3/14, registered with Bardapur Police Station, under Section 3(1)

14] It is worth to mention that the impugned order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was passed by the concerned {10} crapln 3740.14.odt presiding officer of the civil court, when he was dealing with a civil matter by exercising jurisdiction of civil court assigned to him. The tenor and mode of application-cum-complaint filed on behalf of defendants, indicates that the application was filed to traverse the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit. It was not a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. or complaint against the plaintiff but the defendant was intending to deny the pleadings propounded on behalf of plaintiffs, who sought the relief of injunction in the suit. However, the learned Civil Judge, on receipt of the application, suo-motu took the decision unilaterally and passed the impugned order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned presiding officer of the civil court overlooked or glossed over the procedural law while exercising the powers of Magistrate when he was dealing with the civil proceedings and not criminal complaint. The protest application filed by the defendant to traverse the claim of plaintiffs/other side in the suit would not be considered as a "complaint" as defined under section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. It would not be a complaint to the Magistrate with a view to take action under the Cr.P.C. Therefore, it would be fallacious to appreciate the bare protest application filed before Civil Judge, while dealing with civil proceedings, as a petition under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is true that there is no specific format of complaint. But, it must contain particular kind of information and is more or less formally made with the definite object that the person to whom the complaint is made will take action under the Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the circumstances would show that the defendant appeared in the civil proceedings and filed the protest application to resist the claim of the {11} crapln 3740.14.odt plaintiffs. There was no object of defendant for penal action against the plaintiffs, nor he made any request or prayer to take action under Cr.P.C. The protest application was not in the nature of complaint under section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. But, it was filed to raise objection to the releif claimed on behalf of plaintiffs/applicants-herein.

20] It is also significant to mention that, the impugned order directing the investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. came to be passed by the learned Civil Judge against the original plaintiff on bare protest application tendered by defendant (respondent No. 2-herein) on his appearance in the civil proceeding. The very purpose of filing the application by the defendants was to deny or traverse the pleadings of the plaintiffs made in the suit and not to set the criminal law in motion. In general, in each and every civil proceeding there are allegations against each other by the parties to the proceeding. But, it does not mean that in every proceeding the concerned civil court has to exercise the powers of Magistrate as contemplated under the Cr.P.C. for initiating criminal proceeding against the original plaintiffs. In case, after filing civil proceeding for any relief of civil nature against the defendants, the plaintiffs are forced to face criminal proceedings, on the {15} crapln 3740.14.odt allegations nurtured on behalf of the defendants, it would, create a very unhealthy atmosphere and would open the flood-gates of such type of unscrupulous and unprincipled litigation/complaints to harass the plaintiffs in such civil proceedings, and nobody would dare to come forward to seek reliefs from the civil courts of law. It may also result in cynical disregard of law which would have impact on the society and people may lose faith from the judicial system.

21] The impugned order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. passed on bare protest application of respondent No.2 filed in the civil proceedings is not amenable within the purview of legal provisions. The action on the part of the concerned civil court, appears deprecative and unsustainable one. The plaintiff should not be victimized or exploited at any point of time and cost, on his approaching to the civil court for seeking justice. In case, defendant would have any grievance of penal nature he may take recourse of remedy available under Criminal Procedure Code and file separate complaint for penal action against the miscreants. We find force in the submission canvassed on behalf of applicants that the impugned order is erroneous, imperfect, perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside. Moreover, there was no prima facie case made out against the applicants as discussed above to constitute offences under the Atrocities Act, 1989 as well as the offence of criminal intimidation. The impugned order is cryptic and slender in nature. It came to be passed in post-haste manner, without application of mind to the attending circumstances on record. Therefore, we are not {16} crapln 3740.14.odt inclined to uphold the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Ambejogai for initiating criminal action against the applicants.