"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Criminal Charges Inappropriate for Matters That Should Be Resolved Via Civil Litigation: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the FIR lodged in Arunachal Pradesh concerning a property transaction dispute originally occurring in Rajasthan. Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan emphasized that the dispute was “purely civil in nature,” critiquing the misuse of criminal proceedings in this context.

The apex court addressed critical legal points surrounding territorial jurisdiction and the nature of the dispute. It held that the State of Arunachal Pradesh lacked jurisdiction as the alleged cheating and conspiracy occurred entirely in Rajasthan, involving parties and properties located there.

The case arose from a FIR alleging that the respondents, involved in a financial transaction for a property purchase, had cheated the complainant. The Gauhati High Court had initially upheld the FIR, while the Rajasthan High Court quashed it on jurisdictional grounds. The Supreme Court was tasked with resolving these conflicting decisions.

Territorial Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court found that the entire transaction and the subsequent dispute were centered in Rajasthan, establishing that Arunachal Pradesh courts were improperly used for filing the FIR.

Nature of the Dispute: The Court noted that the matter involved financial transactions meant for land purchase, which did not materialize as expected. It classified the issue as civil rather than criminal, stating, “It could not be said to be a case of cheating.”

Misuse of Legal Process: Highlighting the misuse of criminal justice processes, the Court criticized the lodging of the FIR for a matter that should have been pursued through civil litigation. The decision referenced the principles laid down in the landmark State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case, which discourages criminal prosecution in purely civil disputes.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by Chandra Mohan Badaya, quashing the FIR and all related criminal proceedings. It dismissed the appeals by the State of Arunachal Pradesh, affirming the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings due to lack of jurisdiction.

Date of Decision: April 18, 2024.

Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.,

 

Similar News