Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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