Pending Litigations Between Parties Can't Be Sole Ground To Quash Criminal Proceedings U/S 482 CrPC: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that merely because there is a case and a counter case between the parties or merely because there has been a title suit amongst the parties, the same is not sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings instituted by one of them against the other.

Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary referred to the judgment of the State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors, which lays the foundational principle to interfere in the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the said case, an illustrative list has been given for exercise of power by the Court under Article 226.

The original complaint was filed by the opposite party against the petitioners alleging the commission of offence under Sections 193, 195, 196, 209, 211, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 482 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Act. The complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and an FIR was registered.

Upon investigation, it was found that no offence was made against the petitioners and that the case against him was false. Subsequently, the opposite party filled protest-cum-complaint petition. In the said petition, it was alleged that the offences were not properly investigated against the accused. The statements of the complainant and the witnesses were not recorded under Section 161 of CrPC.

The lower court conducted an inquiry in the said protest-cum-complaint case and vide impugned order dated 06.04.2019, took cognizance of offence under Section 417, 465, 471, 482, and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and directed issuance of summons against the petitioners. The prayer before the present court sought to quash the criminal proceedings arising from the said cognizance by the lower court.

Advocate Indrajit Sinha, appearing for the petitioners, argued that in the present dispute there is a case and a counter case between the parties, inasmuch as, the accused persons have also filed a case against the husband of the complainant.

He referred to the case of M.N. Ojha and Ors. v. Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr. to submit that the Magistrate has to look into the case more closely when the case is that of a counter-blast. However, the Court denied to treat it as a ground to be considered for quashing of criminal proceedings.

However, the Court noted that it has been alleged by the complainant that the accused persons have fabricated and used certain documents against her husband in the criminal case and the petitioners have misused the name and style of the shop in which she is the sole proprietor. Thus, it cannot be said that no criminal case at all is made out against the present petitioners.

It noted that the case at hand does not satisfy any of the following conditions laid down in the case of Bhajan Singh for quashing the criminal proceeding:

-Where allegations made in FIR or complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or warrant an investigation under Section 156(1) CrPC;

Thus, the Court refused to quash the proceedings and further observed that if any forged document is used in a case, then the allegation of forgery must be established by instituting a specific case for the purpose.

Case Title: Chetan Adesera & Ors v. The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 50

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order