- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- S.203 CrPC | Before Dropping...
S.203 CrPC | Before Dropping Criminal Proceedings Court To Be Satisfied That Complaint Is Purely Civil, Devoid Of Criminal Texture: J&K&L High Court
Basit Amin Makhdoomi
18 Oct 2022 8:15 AM GMT
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently reiterated that before deciding to drop proceedings in a criminal complaint, the Court has to be satisfied that the subject matter involved in the complaint is a purely civil wrong and that it has no criminal texture to it.The observations were made by Justice Sanjay Dhar while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently reiterated that before deciding to drop proceedings in a criminal complaint, the Court has to be satisfied that the subject matter involved in the complaint is a purely civil wrong and that it has no criminal texture to it.
The observations were made by Justice Sanjay Dhar while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner had challenged order of Municipal Magistrate, Jammu dismissing his criminal complaint in exercise of powers under Section 203 CrPC and the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu which dismissed the revision petition filed against Magistrate's dismissal order.
The petitioner contended that the contents of the complaint clearly disclose commission of criminal offence against the respondents, inasmuch as the offence of criminal breach of trust and forgery are disclosed against them. It was further argued that provision of alternative mechanism for redressal of any dispute does not ipso-facto absolve a person from criminal liability and that mere presence of civil element in a criminal offence does not mean that no offence is made out.
The criminal complaint was filed after a building agreement went sour. The complaint filed for offences under Sections 406/ 409/ 481/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 120-B RPC alleged that the Petitioner was to be awarded certain tenancy rights, however, the respondents dishonestly shifted the tenancy rights without the knowledge of the complainant.
The Courts below held that the dispute is in the realm of civil dispute for which remedy is available in the agreement executed between the parties and as such, criminal proceedings cannot lie against the respondents.
Deciding the matter in controversy, Justice Dhar observed that there can be no dispute to the fact that merely because a particular act of a person gives rise to civil liability against another person does not mean that no criminal proceedings can be initiated against such person.
In order to explain the law on the subject the bench placed firm reliance on the Supreme Court judgement in M/s Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s NEPC India Ltd. and others (2006) 6 SCC 736 wherein SC observed,
"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 proceedings 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."
Applying the position of law in vogue on the matter, the bench went on to analyse the offences alleged in the complaint and held that it is clear that the transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is purely of civil nature and it has been given a criminal colour by the petitioner/complainant, which is impermissible in law and hence the trial Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaint by exercising his powers under Section 203 CrPC.
Accordingly, the bench dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Bahu Builders and Traders Jammu Pvt. Ltd Vs J&K Dharmarth Trust and others.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 185
