Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Criminal Proceedings Cannot be Used to Settle Civil Matters: J&K High Court Rules, Quashing FIR Filed Under Multiple Sections of Ranbir Penal Code

09 November 2024 8:04 PM

By: sayum


The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed FIR No. 42/2015 registered against Manjeet Singh Rissam in a contentious property dispute, reinforcing the legal principle that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases. The judgment, delivered by Justice Rajnesh Oswal, highlighted the predominance of civil elements in the case and deemed the criminal proceedings an abuse of legal process.

Manjeet Singh Rissam, aged 60, was accused under various sections of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), including Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy). The FIR, registered at the instance of Kanwar Bir Kour, alleged that Rissam and his deceased father sold her a property in Jammu, which they later illegally occupied despite the expiry of a license agreement. Rissam contended that the sale deeds were merely to secure a loan, and the dispute was essentially civil, already being addressed in ongoing civil suits.

Dispute Nature and Civil Proceedings: Justice Oswal noted that the primary issue between the parties was civil in nature, involving the ownership and occupation of property sold under two sale deeds. The court emphasized, “The dispute, primarily civil in nature, is being addressed in civil courts. Criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil matters.”

Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust: The court examined the ingredients necessary to constitute the offenses of cheating and criminal breach of trust. “From the allegations in the complaint, it cannot be said that there was any act of deception on the part of the accused so as to induce the respondent to part away with the possession of the property,” the judgment stated. Furthermore, the court observed that no fraudulent or dishonest inducement was evident, thereby negating the charges of cheating.

Guidance from Supreme Court Precedents: Citing several Supreme Court rulings, including R. K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam and Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, the court reiterated that criminal prosecution should not be used to resolve civil disputes. The judgment highlighted the Supreme Court’s caution against converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases, noting, “The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has deprecated the practice of using criminal proceedings to settle civil disputes time and again.”

Justice Oswal remarked, “The FIR impugned is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The respondent cannot continue to use the criminal proceedings for settling the civil dispute once she has already availed the remedy of the civil suit for the vacation of the house.”

The High Court’s decision to quash the FIR underlines the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining a clear distinction between civil and criminal jurisdictions. This judgment is expected to have a significant impact on how similar cases are approached in the future, reinforcing the principle that criminal law should not be misused to exert pressure in civil disputes. The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in preventing the abuse of legal processes and ensuring that civil matters are resolved through appropriate civil remedies.

Date of Decision: 24th May 2024

Manjeet Singh Rissam alias Mangit Singh vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir

 

Latest Legal News