-
by sayum
28 July 2026 10:19 AM
"Mere existence of a civil dispute, contractual relationship, or availability or invocation of civil remedies such as arbitration, recovery proceedings, settlement, or repayment does not by itself bar or justify quashing of criminal prosecution, since civil and criminal liabilities may coexist," High Court for the State of Telangana, in a significant ruling dated May 5, 2026, held that the existence of an arbitration clause or the availability of civil remedies does not preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings in cases involving the alleged misappropriation of public funds.
A single-judge bench of Justice J. Sreenivas Rao observed that when allegations prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, such as criminal breach of trust regarding government property, the High Court should not interdict the investigation at the threshold stage.
The primary question before the court was whether the criminal proceedings were maintainable despite the existence of an arbitration clause and specific civil remedies within the Custom Milling Agreement. The court was also called upon to determine whether the rice millers fell within the definition of "agents" under Section 316(5) of the BNS and if the delay in lodging the complaints warranted a quashing of the FIRs under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Civil And Criminal Liabilities Can Coexist In Contractual Disputes
The court first addressed the contention that the dispute was purely civil in nature, arising out of a commercial contract. Justice J. Sreenivas Rao noted that while a transaction might have a civil or contractual veneer, it does not absolve a party of criminal liability if the essential ingredients of an offence are present.
The bench emphasized that where allegations disclose dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property, the proceedings must ordinarily be permitted to continue. The court observed that civil and criminal liabilities are not mutually exclusive and can coexist within the same set of facts, especially when public interest and government property are at stake.
"Arbitration is a civil remedy for contractual breaches and cannot substitute or override the criminal process where the acts complained of constitute offences under law."
Arbitration Clause Does Not Bar Criminal Prosecution
Arbitrator Has No Jurisdiction Over Criminal Charges
Regarding the petitioners' reliance on the arbitration clause (Clause 13.4 of the Agreement), the court held that an arbitrator's mandate is limited to adjudicating contractual disputes and does not extend to trying criminal charges. The bench noted that the existence of an alternative mechanism for recovery does not nullify the state's power to prosecute for crimes like cheating or criminal breach of trust.
The court reiterated that investigation and criminal proceedings should not be pre-empted or quashed merely because a specialized arbitration mechanism exists. Such a move, the court noted, would allow potential offenders to escape liability under the guise of a civil dispute.
Relationship Of Agency Established Through Dominion Over Property
Rice Millers Acted In Fiduciary Capacity As Agents
The petitioners argued that they were merely "job workers" and did not fall under the ambit of "agents" as envisaged under Section 316(5) of the BNS. However, the court found this contention to be misconceived. The bench held that the execution of the agreement and the admitted entrustment of government paddy established a relationship of agency coupled with dominion over the property.
The court noted that the fiduciary nature of the possession and the significant unexplained shortages revealed during inspection prima facie demonstrated that the petitioners had failed to duly account for government property. The mere characterization of the transaction as "job work" does not detract from the legal effect of entrustment.
"The execution of the agreement and the admitted entrustment of Government paddy clearly establish a relationship of agency coupled with dominion over property."
Delay In Lodging FIR Not A Ground For Quashing At Threshold
Evidence Regarding Delay To Be Examined During Trial
Addressing the issue of delay in lodging the complaints, the court observed that a delay in filing an FIR is a matter of evidence to be examined during the trial. The bench held that the mere fact that a complaint was filed belatedly does not justify quashing the proceedings at the nascent stage of the investigation.
The court clarified that in cases involving the alleged misappropriation of huge quantities of public funds and the disruption of welfare-oriented procurement schemes, the court must be cautious. The determination of whether a delay was malicious or fatal to the prosecution falls within the domain of the trial court, not the High Court exercising inherent powers.
Scope Of Inherent Powers Under Section 528 BNSS
Courts Should Not Scuttle Investigation At Nascent Stage
The court concluded by outlining the limited scope of its jurisdiction to quash FIRs. Relying on the principles laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure and Bhajan Lal, the bench held that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences.
The court stated that as the investigation was still in progress and the allegations prima facie disclosed cognizable offences, the petitioners were not entitled to seek a quashing of the crimes. SCuttling the investigation at this stage would prevent the truth from being revealed through a holistic evaluation of the material on record.
The High Court dismissed the clubbed criminal petitions, refusing to quash the FIRs registered against the rice millers. The court held that the allegations of misappropriating government paddy worth hundreds of crores require a thorough investigation. The bench maintained that the legal process must be allowed to take its course to ensure that public funds are protected and offenders are held accountable.
Date of Decision: May 05, 2026
