Pendency Of Civil Dispute No Ground To Discharge Accused If Allegations Disclose Criminal Offence: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that criminal prosecution can be carried out even during pendency of civil dispute between parties if allegations make out punishable offence under criminal law.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi relied on Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. where the Supreme Court had held,
“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.”
The Complainant lodged a complaint alleging that the opposite parties (petitioners herein) forcefully took possession of his house and filed a suit where status quo was ordered. It was further alleged that certain items were removed from the property of the complainant and before the police could arrive, petitioners ran away with the items. Since no FIR was being registered by the Police, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. wherein FIR registration was directed.
Investigation was carried out, statements were recorded and chargesheet was filed against 9 persons (all petitioners herein) for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. Petitioners filed discharge applications which were rejected by the Trial Court on grounds that the material collected during investigation prima facie revealed commission of offence by the accused.
Accordingly, they approached the High Court against the order of the Trial Court on grounds that the order was mechanical, without consideration of evidence on record.
The Court observed that at the stage of discharge, the Trial Court had to only satisfy itself to the extent that the material on record raised suspicion that the offence was committed by the accused. However, it noted that the Trial Court had rejected the discharge applications by merely stating that the material was sufficient to proceed with the Trial.
The Court further noted that the petitioners 5-9 (except petitioner 7) were not mentioned in the statement under Section 156(3) given by the complainant before the Magistrate, yet they were named in the chargesheet. Noting that petitioners 5-9 (except petitioner 7) were ladies of the family, the Court observed that case against them was not proved as there was no evidence against them and no recovery was made from them. It held that the since their names were added as an afterthought by the father of the complainant, they were entitled to be discharged.
Noting that specific allegations were made against petitioners 1-4 and petitioner 7 regarding stealing stuff and taking over possession of the complainant's property, the Court held that they could not be discharged merely because civil proceedings were pending between the parties.
“In the present case, the allegations clearly make out commission of offences punishable in criminal law. Merely because there is a civil dispute between the parties, it cannot be said that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the allegations of commission of offences.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition with respect to petitioners 1-4 and 7 whereas petitioners 5, 6,8 and 9 were discharged.
Case Title: Baburam And 8 Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 301
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 301