2009 (5) TMI 921 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a pure civil dispute can be a subject matter of a criminal proceeding under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code?

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a pure civil dispute can be a subject matter of a criminal proceeding under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 469 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Validity of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's cognizance of the offence without assigning reasons.
3. Applicability of the principle of res judicata in criminal proceedings.
4. Distinction between civil wrongs and criminal wrongs in the context of the dispute.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Civil Dispute as a Criminal Proceeding
The core question was whether a pure civil dispute could be a subject matter of a criminal proceeding under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 469 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that the appellants and respondents were co-sharers in a joint family property and the dispute was primarily about the extent of their respective shares. The Court emphasized that such disputes should be determined only in a civil suit. It was noted that the execution of a sale deed by the appellants, claiming a one-third share, would not bind the complainant-respondent and could be contested in a civil court. The Court cited the case of Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi, stating that a decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil court, while a decision by a civil court binds the criminal court. It was reiterated that civil and criminal proceedings could run simultaneously, but the result in one would not bind the other (P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu).

Issue 2: Cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
The appellants argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not assign any reason while taking cognizance of the offence, indicating non-application of mind. The Court agreed, stating that the Chief Judicial Magistrate should have reflected his application of mind in his order. The Court cited State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Pastor P. Raju and Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttaranchal, emphasizing the necessity for the Magistrate to apply his mind to the contents of the chargesheet.

Issue 3: Principle of Res Judicata
The respondent contended that the High Court's order dated 17.10.2005 should operate as res judicata. The Court rejected this view, clarifying that the principle of res judicata has no application in criminal proceedings. The principle, as outlined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not apply to cases of this nature.

Issue 4: Civil Wrong vs. Criminal Wrong
The Court distinguished between civil wrongs and criminal wrongs, noting that a wrong committed by a person could give rise to both civil and criminal actions. However, when the dispute constitutes only a civil wrong, the courts should not permit harassment through criminal proceedings. The Court observed that the allegations made did not satisfy the ingredients of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or representation. The Court cited V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat and Anr., stating that a misrepresentation from the very beginning is a sine qua non for constituting an offence of cheating.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and should be resolved in a civil court. The Court directed the concerned civil court to expedite the disposal of the pending civil suit. The judgment underscored the necessity for judicial officers to apply their minds when taking cognizance of offences and reiterated the distinction between civil and criminal wrongs.

← Previous Next →