2014 (1) TMI 1943 - SC - Indian Laws

Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC - Conversion of purely civil dispute into criminal act - High Court declined to quash the proceedings initiated against the Appellant on the ground that all the submissions relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by the Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Bhajan Lal's case 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT , this Court enumerated the categories of cases, by way of illustration, wherein the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent power under Section 487 Code of Criminal Procedure, or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to prevent abuse of the process of court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The case pleaded by the Petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of propositions 5 and 7. In view of the above, the order passed by the High Court cannot be upheld, and the same is hereby set aside - The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Nature of the dispute: civil vs. criminal.
3. Jurisdictional error by the High Court.
4. Malicious intent and abuse of the process of law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The appellant sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her, arguing that the High Court erred in dismissing her petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had declined to quash the proceedings on the grounds that the submissions related to disputed questions of fact, which could not be adjudicated under Section 482. The High Court had observed that only a prima facie case was to be seen at this stage, referencing several Supreme Court judgments.

2. Nature of the dispute: civil vs. criminal:
The appellant contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature, stemming from a business transaction involving the supply of wooden bracelets. The appellant had raised a debit note due to the inferior quality of the goods supplied, which was acknowledged by the respondent. Despite this, the respondent filed a criminal complaint alleging non-payment and threatening behavior by the appellant. The Supreme Court found that the allegations of criminal behavior were absurd and outlandish, noting that the dispute was essentially commercial and had been maliciously converted into a criminal case.

3. Jurisdictional error by the High Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by dismissing the appellant's petition on the grounds of disputed questions of fact. The Supreme Court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint were inherently improbable and could not be taken seriously by any reasonable person. The Court highlighted that the dispute was civil in nature and had been admitted as such in the respondent's counter affidavit.

4. Malicious intent and abuse of the process of law:
The Supreme Court observed that the criminal complaint was filed with malicious intent to harass the appellant. The Court referenced several judgments to illustrate that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of the transaction. The Court concluded that the allegations made in the complaint were inserted with the intent to convert a civil dispute into a criminal offense, thereby constituting an abuse of the process of law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court, quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant, and discharged the appellant's bail bonds. The Court refrained from imposing heavy costs on the respondent despite recognizing the malicious nature of the complaint.