Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act

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

 

Similar News