Criminal Case Should Be Quashed When Civil Case Is Pending On Same Issue & Criminality Element Is Absent : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (July 31) reiterated that in the absence of criminality, a civil and criminal case cannot be allowed to continue with respect to the same issue, as it would amount to abuse of process of law, warranting the Court's interference to quash the criminal proceedings. “In the absence of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the process of the Court, which the Courts have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already been instituted with regard to the same issue, and the element of criminality is absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed.”, the court observed. The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the case where a complainant had simultaneously pursued a civil suit for specific performance of a property agreement while lodging an FIR alleging cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) against the landowners. Setting aside the Karnataka High Court's decision, which refused to quash criminal cases against the Appellants, the judgment authored by Justice Amanullah noted that the civil disputes (like breach of contract or property disagreements) must be adjudicated through civil remedies, while criminal charges require proof of criminal intent from the inception of the transaction. The Court said the Appellants attempted to convert the civil dispute, giving it a criminal color.Since the criminal proceedings were initiated against the Appellants only after an increase in the market value of the property, as stated by the Complainant in his statement, the court found that the Complainant failed to establish prima facie criminal intent at the time of the agreement. Reference was drawn to the case of Paramjeet Batra v State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, where it was observed: “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.'” Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the FIR registered against the Appellants stands quashed. Cause Title: S. N. VIJAYALAKSHMI & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 758Click here to read/download the judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil C Nishani, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. P Prasanna Kumar, Adv. Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Krishna M Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishwesh R Murnal, Adv. M/S. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. (NP) Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mrs. Geetanjali Bedi, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Mr. Rupraj Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Gaur, Adv.Related: 'Attempt To Transform Civil Dispute Into Criminal Matter', Supreme Court Quashes Workplace Harassment CaseCriminal Proceedings Can't Be Quashed Merely Because Of Pending Civil Cases On Same Subject Matter : Supreme Court

Criminal Case Should Be Quashed When Civil Case Is Pending On Same Issue & Criminality Element Is Absent : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags