It is most significant to note that the Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Kamlesh Singh vs State of UP and 3 others in Application U/S 482 No. – 14659 of 2024 and which is cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:AHC:105288 that was first reserved on 25.06.2024 and then was finally pronounced on 27.06.2024 has quashed the criminal proceedings against Kamlesh Singh, who was accused of fraud and forgery that pertained to a property dispute in Mainpuri district. Of course, it must be certainly mentioned here that the case which was registered as Case No. 4206 of 2023 has stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) that was filed by one Ishwar Singh seriously alleging that one Kamlesh Singh had fraudulently executed a power of attorney and had conducted property transactions also without any proper authorization. It definitely cannot ever go unnoticed that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery was unequivocal in holding bluntly that, “ There is a growing tendency to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases, which should be deprecated and discouraged.” This definitely cannot be allowed to go unchecked, unhindered and so also unaccounted for and this is what is the sum and substance of this notable judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court which deserves to be most strictly implemented by ensuring that civil disputes are not allowed to be converted into criminal cases on one pretext or the other! No denying it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery of the Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth most precisely in para 1 stating that, “Applicant-Kamlesh Singh (accused) and Complainant-Ishwar Singh (Opposite Party No. 4) are resident of Mumbai. The matter pertains to properties situated in District Mainpuri, details of which are mentioned in para 8 of present application.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that, “The case is further arising out of a registered power of attorney purportedly executed by accused in favour of one, Shiv Ram Mishra in the year 2008. After a period of more than a decade it has now been alleged that applicant was not empowered to execute the said power of attorney and it was a piece of fraud and forgery.”
While elaborating, the Bench points out in para 3 that, “It is not in dispute that after execution of power of attorney there were civil proceedings between applicant and Opposite Party No. 4 (Complainant) that a suit for perpetual injunction being Original Suit No. 171 of 2012 (Ishwar Singh Vs. Kamlesh Singh and others) was filed wherein on basis of a compromise, the suit was withdrawn though now it has been contended that referred compromise was entered by a person not empowered to do so. However, it is not in dispute that neither said compromise was challenged nor order to withdraw the suit was challenged. The Complainant has not taken any subsequent action, either civil or criminal, for a decade till he has lodged F.I.R. dated 14.07.2023 against applicant wherein after investigation a charge sheet was filed, which is subject matter of present case, alleging that a fraud was played by applicant with regard to properties referred above as well as power of attorney was also a result of a fraud.”
As we see, the Bench discloses in para 4 that, “In pursuance of above referred F.I.R. investigation was conducted and a charge sheet dated 30.08.2023 was filed in Case Crime No. 0471 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. wherein Trial Court took cognizance and applicant has been summoned vide order dated 22.09.2023, which is impugned in present application.”
Most significantly, most brilliantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench to put it briefly postulates in para 8 that, “Before adverting to rival submissions it would be relevant to refer few paragraphs of a recent judgement passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, as the facts of said case and discussion on law, would be relevant for consideration of present case:-
“9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited1 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus:
“12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few—Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed : (SCC p. 643, para 8)
“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.”
14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.”
10. The Court has also noted the concern with regard to a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The Court observed that this is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court also recorded that there is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. The Court, relying on the law laid down by it in the case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. The Court also observed that though no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law.”
Briefly stated, the Bench states in para 12 that, “The investigation in present case appears to be conducted in a very casual manner, therefore, in this regard, reference of outcome of an inquiry conducted by Police Officer become relevant that it was a purely civil dispute.”
It is certainly worth noting that the Bench notes in para 13 that, “In above background, Court takes note of observations made by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan (Supra) that there is a growing tendency to conduct purely civil dispute into criminal cases and further observation that there is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement and for that the observations made by Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 are also relevant.”
As a corollary, the Bench observes in para 14 that, “In aforesaid circumstances, I find that it is a fit case where in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance and summoning order can be quashed since it is an outcome of investigation which appears to be very casual in nature and as discussed above dispute between parties is of civil in nature, which could not be given a criminal angle, only to harass accused i.e., applicant as well as ingredients of offences levelled are not made out.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 15 that, “It would be appropriate to mention following paragraph of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and another vs. The State of Karnataka and another, 2024 INSC 196, that in similar circumstances inherent power can be exercised:
“6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held:
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 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 the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.”
Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” (Emphasis supplied).”
In addition, the Bench directs in para 16 holding that, “In the result, application is allowed. Impugned charge sheet dated 30.08.2023, summoning order dated 22.09.2023 and all further proceedings in Case No. 4206 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 0471 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, are hereby quashed.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing in para 17 that, “Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.”
Sanjeev Sirohi
