MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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.,

 

Latest Legal News