Dowry Case | In the absence of specific allegations, mere naming of distant relatives cannot justify prosecution: MP High Court Non-Commencement of Activities Alone Not a Ground for Refusal: Calcutta High Court at Calcutta Affirms Trust Registration, Stating Granting Shifting Permissions is a Quasi-Judicial Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Disciplinary Charges Against MCA Official Jurisdiction Does Not Preclude Transfer to Competent Family Courts: Rules Kerala High Court Madras High Court Acquits Two, Reduces Sentence of Main Accused: Single Injury Does Not Prove Intent to Murder Financial Creditors Retain Right to Pursue Personal Guarantors Post-Resolution Plan: Punjab & Haryana High Court Proper Notice and Enquiry are the Bedrock of Just Administrative Actions: Rajasthan High Court Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Discharge Order in Madan Tamang Murder Case, Orders Trial for Bimal Gurung Review Cannot be Treated Like an Appeal in Disguise: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Tax Review Petition Delhi High Court Orders Interest Payment on Delayed Tax Refunds: ‘Refund Delays Cannot Be Justified by Legal Issues’” Freedom of Press Does Not Exempt Legal Consequences: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Journalists in Jail Sting Operation Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right”: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Rejection of SEZ Plot Allotment Indefeasible Right to Bail Arises When Investigation Exceeds Statutory Period: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Extension Orders in NDPS Case Higher Qualifications Can't Override Prescribed Standards, But Service Deserves Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court A Mere Breach of Promise Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust Under Section 406 IPC: Rajasthan High Court Madras High Court Overturns Order Denying IDA Increments, Citing Unfair Settlement Exclusion No Premeditated Intention to Kill: Kerala High Court Reduces Murder Convictions in Football Clash Case Landlord Need Not Be Owner to Seek Eviction: Court Upholds Broad Definition of Landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Delhi High Court Sets Aside Status Quo on Property, Initiates Contempt Proceedings for False Pleadings and Suppression of Facts Calcutta High Court Rules Deceased Driver Qualifies as Third Party, Overrides Policy Limitations for Just Compensation A Litigant Who Pollutes the Stream of Justice Is Not Entitled to Any Relief: Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case Due to Suppression of Evidence Punjab and Haryana High Court Awards Compensation in Illegal Termination Case, Affirms Forest Department as an 'Industry' Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Madras High Court Acquits Man in Double Murder Case Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Loan Repayment Dispute: Manifestly Attended with Mala Fide Intentions Systematic Instruction Essential for ‘Education’ Tax Exemption: Delhi High Court Intent to Deceive Constitutes Forgery: High Court of Calcutta Dismisses Quashing Petition in Fraudulent Property Inclusion 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