The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

“Civil Disputes Can’t Be Settled with Criminal Cases”: Jharkhand High Court Slams Misuse of Law

29 August 2024 2:26 PM

By: sayum


The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings against BALCO Limited and its high-ranking officials in a case arising from a commercial dispute. The court’s decision, delivered by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, underscored the misuse of criminal law to settle civil disputes, stressing that the criminal justice system should not be exploited for personal vendettas.

The case involved a complaint filed by Ganesh Kumar Agiwal, proprietor of M/s Vassu Enterprises, against BALCO Limited and several of its executives. The dispute originated from a series of contracts between Vassu Enterprises and BALCO for material handling, housekeeping, and transportation services. Following the termination of these contracts in 2015, Agiwal alleged that BALCO had withheld machinery and payments amounting to over Rs. 15 crore, leading to significant financial losses and GST liabilities for his firm.

The High Court observed that the dispute between Vassu Enterprises and BALCO was purely civil in nature, arising from contractual obligations. Justice Dwivedi noted, “Every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating unless there was any deception played at the very inception.”

The court emphasized that converting civil disputes into criminal cases is a growing trend, often driven by the perception that civil remedies are slow and inadequate. It stated, “To pursue criminal charges in a case to abuse the criminal justice system with a motive to seek personal vengeance, rather than seeking justice, was further deprecated time and again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts.”

The court criticized the lower court’s order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which directed the police to register an FIR and investigate the complaint without proper application of judicial mind. Citing the Supreme Court’s guidance in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., the judgment stated, “The learned Magistrate should take note of the allegations in entirety, the date of incident and whether any cognizable case is remotely made out.”

Justice Dwivedi remarked, “To allow the proceeding to continue, will amount to an abuse of the process of law. The allegations reveal a purely civil dispute for a money claim alleging that full payments were not made. There is no assertion of any dishonest intention or misappropriation to cheat from the very beginning.”

The quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings by the Jharkhand High Court underscores the importance of distinguishing between civil and criminal matters. This judgment serves as a reminder that the criminal justice system should not be misused to exert undue pressure in commercial disputes. The pending case under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act will proceed independently, ensuring that the civil aspects of the dispute are addressed appropriately.

Date of Decision: August 2, 2024

BALCO Limited and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Ganesh Kumar Agiwal

Similar News