Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2012 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 1219 - SC - Indian LawsQuashing of order by HC - Entitlement for Profit of the Hotel business and its Ownership - False and fabricated Documents - In this case the dispute is essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership.it was also alleged by the respondent, that false and fabricated documents was used by appellant suit claiming tenancy of the shop. HELD THAT - While exercising its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But 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 criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. Therefore, The High Court has quashed the complaint as it discloses civil dispute and same has been filed by the Appellant making similar grievance and is pending. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case including false and fabricated documents are also quashed and set aside. This order will however have no effect on the pending civil suit between the parties. Needless to say that the court, seized of the said suit, shall decide it independently and in accordance with law and the order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court is also set aside.
Issues Involved:
- Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Determining whether the dispute is civil or criminal in nature - Abuse of process of law and ends of justice Analysis: Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The Appellant, along with other accused, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash criminal proceedings against them. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave and proceeded to analyze the facts and legal arguments presented before it. Issue 2: Determining Whether the Dispute is Civil or Criminal in Nature The complaint filed by Respondent 2 alleged various offenses under the Indian Penal Code against the Appellant and other accused. However, upon examination, the Supreme Court found that the core issue revolved around a civil dispute regarding the profit of a business and ownership matters. The Court observed that the complaint primarily involved allegations related to a civil transaction, such as non-disclosure of business accounts and disputes over a written agreement. The Court noted that the pending civil suit between the parties would adequately address these civil issues. Issue 3: Abuse of Process of Law and Ends of Justice The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not misused to address civil disputes. It highlighted that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised judiciously to prevent abuse of the court's process and to serve the ends of justice. In this case, the Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process, especially considering that the Appellant had already been acquitted in a previous case and had handed over possession of the disputed shop to Respondent 2. In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed the criminal proceedings against the Appellant and other accused. The Court clarified that this decision would not affect the pending civil suit between the parties, which would be independently adjudicated by the relevant court. The judgment underscored the need to distinguish between civil and criminal disputes and to prevent the misuse of criminal proceedings in cases primarily involving civil matters.
|