Finding Of The Civil Court Makes Substratum Of The Criminal
Complaint Vanish Against Any Person And The Criminal Proceedings
Qua Him Are Liable To Be Quashed
1. Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10.02.2020 in the judgment titled Mukul
Agrawal v. State of U.P., (2020) 3 SCC 402, has held that finding of the
civil court makes substratum of the criminal complaint vanish against
any person and the criminal proceedings qua him are liable to be
quashed and it will be a complete abuse of process of law to allow such
persons to be prosecuted. The relevant paras of the judgment have been
reproduced below:
“5. The civil suit came to be decided on 13-5-
2015 holding that the signature of Respondent 2
on the agreement dated 30-3-1988 was forged
and that it was a fabricated document.
6. The aggrieved appellant, preferred Civil
Appeal No. 17 of 2015 which has been allowed
setting aside the findings in the suit holding that
the agreement was not a false and fabricated
document.
7. In view of the conclusive opinion of the
appellate court that the agreement dated 30-3-
1988 was not a forged document, the very
substratum of the criminal complaint
vanishes. In the circumstances to allow the
appellants to be prosecuted will only be a
complete abuse of the process of law. The
proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2705 of 2003
are therefore quashed and the appeal is
allowed.”
2. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after relying upon Mukul Agrawal
(supra), vide order dated 26.04.2023 in the case titled Mukul Agrawal v.
State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 501, has held as under:
“7. It is no doubt correct that the judgment
and order dated 10.02.2020 passed by this
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020 has
held that the findings recorded in the civil
proceedings make substratum of a criminal
complaint vanish and thus, any pending
criminal proceedings against such persons
are liable to be quashed and allowing
prosecution in such a situation would
amount to complete abuse of proceedings of
law.
8. It goes without saying that the law laid
down by this Court is binding on all under Article
141 of the Constitution of India but before
applying the law, the court where the proceedings
are pending is required to test the applicability of
the law declared by this Court on the basis of the
facts of a particular case.
9. Such a blanket declaration sought by the
applicant by way of clarification of an order by
way of intervention in proceedings to which he is
totally alien is not liable to be allowed. It goes
without saying that facts and circumstances of a
particular case are required to be tested to find
out whether the law declared by this Court is
applicable to the said facts or not. We have no
reason to doubt that the courts will not follow the
binding law declared by this Court in case it is
found that the same is applicable to the facts of a
particular case.
10. In view of above, the applicant cannot be
permitted to seek clarification of the order dated
10.02.2020 by way of an intervention as the
same is a matter to be considered by the
concerned court, where the proceedings in respect
of the applicant is pending.
11. The application of the applicant for
permission to file intervention is rejected and
accordingly, the intervention and the application
seeking clarification also stand dismissed.
12. The Miscellaneous Application stand
disposed of accordingly.”
3. Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh bench at Gwalior on 04.07.2023
in the judgment titled Shrichand Bhau and Ors. vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and Ors., MANU/MP/1848/2023, has held that filing a
criminal complaint with malicious intent solely to harass the accused
after the completion of civil litigation is impermissible in the eyes of law.
The relevant paras of the judgment have been reproduced below:
“48. To recapitulate for conclusion, in the
present case, on the basis of facts narrated it
appears that once civil proceedings came to
an end and once petitioners purchased the
property through valid registered
instruments, recognized by law then the
complainant had no occasion to file
criminal complaint specifically when he lost
from all forums in civil litigation and never
propounded and established the Will dated
04-03-2008 and now trying to get it done
through indirect means which he could not
achieve through direct means. Same is not
permissible in the eyes of law and
petitioners/accused are required to be
protected from the wrath of such malicious
prosecution. Therefore, the FIR registered
against petitioners on 07-07-2021 vide Crime
No.319/2021 for the offences under Section 420,
467, 468, 471, and 34 of IPC are hereby
quashed.”
—---------------x—----------------
Civil nature of dispute
4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State
of Uttaranchal 2007 [4] JCC 2843 held that:
“22. The veracity of the facts alleged by the
appellants and the respondents can only be
ascertained on the basis of evidence and
documents by a civil court of competent
jurisdiction. The dispute in question is purely
of civil nature, and respondent no. 3 has
already instituted a civil suit in the court of
civil judge. In the facts and circumstances of
this case, initiating criminal proceedings by
the respondent against the appellants is
clearly an abuse of the process of the court.
Scope and ambit of courts – power under Section
482”.
5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter “Paramjeet Batra Vs. State (2013)
11 SCC 673 has held that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may
also have a criminal texture and The High Court must see whether a
dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal
offence and in such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and has
been adopted, The High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal
proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court. The relevant
portion has been mentioned under:
“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 b 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 c 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.”
Delay in lodging FIR
6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled Kishan Singh (D) through
Lrs. vs. Gurpal Singh and Ors., MANU/SC/0591/2010, held that
prompt reporting of an incident in an FIR is crucial for establishing its
credibility, and while a delay in filing the FIR can be acceptable if
adequately explained, deliberate delay with malicious intent can render it
invalid, particularly when it follows a failure in civil court proceedings.
The relevant paras of the judgment have been reproduced below:
“21. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence
by the informant with all its vivid details gives an
assurance regarding truth of its version. In case,
there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant
must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly,
delay in lodging the FIR does not make the
complainant's case improbable when such delay is
properly explained. However, deliberate delay in
lodging the complaint is always fatal. vide: Sahib
Singh v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0821/1997 : AIR
1997 SC 3247.
22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the
Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay.
In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal.
The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be
merely that the allegations were an after thought or had
given a coloured version of events. In such cases the
court should carefully examine the facts before it for
the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to
succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal
proceedings just to harass the other side with mala
fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking
vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and
frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give
vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the
jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court
proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate
into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such
a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite
the other party because of a private and personal grudge
and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal
proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to
an abuse of the process of law in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(vide: Chandrapal Singh and Ors. v. Maharaj Singh and
Anr. MANU/SC/0228/1982 : AIR 1982 SC 1238; State of
Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.
MANU/SC/0115/1992 : AIR 1992 SC 604; G. Sagar Suri
and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0045/2000 :
AIR 2000 SC 754; and Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. and
Ors. MANU/SC/7983/2008 : (2008) 12 SCC 531.
23. The case before us relates to a question of the
genuineness of the agreement to sell dated 4.1.1988. The
said agreement was between Kishori Lal and respondents
and according to the terms of the said agreement, the sale
deed was to be executed by 10.6.1989. As the sale deed
was not executed within the said time, suit for specific
performance was filed by the other party in 1989 which
was decreed in 1996. So far as the present appellants are
concerned, agreement to sell dated 22.10.1988 was
executed in favour of their father and the sale deed was to
be executed by 15.6.1989. No action was taken till 1996 for
non-execution of the sale deed. The appellants' father
approached the court after 7 years by filing Suit No.
81/1996 for specific performance. However, by that time,
the suit filed by the present respondents stood decreed. The
appellants' father filed another Suit No. 1075/96 for setting
aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the
respondents 1 to 4. The said suit was dismissed by the
Additional District Judge (Senior Division), Khanna on
10.6.2002. Subsequently, the appellants preferred RFA No.
2488/02 on 15.7.2002 against the aforesaid order, and the
said appeal is still pending before the Punjab & Haryana
High Court.
24. It is to be noted that the appellants' father Kishan
Singh lodged FIR No. 144/02 on 23.7.2002 through his
attorney Jaswant Singh Mann under Sections
420/323/467/468/471/120B IPC, against the
respondents. The allegations made in the FIR were
substantially similar to the allegations made by the
appellants in Civil Suit No. 1075/96, which had been
decided against them. It is evident that the aforesaid FIR
was filed with inordinate delay and there has been no
plausible explanation for the same. The appellants lodged
the aforesaid FIR only after meeting their Waterloo in the
Civil Court. Thus, it is evident that the FIR was lodged with
the sole intention of harassing the respondents and
enmeshing them in long and arduous criminal proceedings.
We are of the view that such an action on the part of the
appellants' father would not be bona fide, and the criminal
proceedings initiated by him against the respondents
amount to an abuse of the process of law.
25. In view of the above, and to do substantial justice,
we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the
High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the
respondents in spite of the fact that the impugned judgment
dated 13.02.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 4136 of
2003 is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
