MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

FIR Quashed - Civil Liability Cannot be Converted into Criminal Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana emphasized that mere breach of a contractual agreement does not amount to criminal offense under Sections 420 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background: The Court considered the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No. 38 dated 01.07.2022, filed under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC, which involved allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy connected to a breach of a marital agreement.

Facts and Issues: The FIR, based on an agreement executed between the parties’ parents, alleged that the petitioner, Manpreet Kaur, did not fulfill her obligation to assist her husband, the respondent, in immigrating to Canada, despite substantial financial expenditure incurred by the respondent's family.

Civil Remedy Over Criminal Prosecution: The Court observed that the agreement provided for a civil remedy in case of breach and stressed that turning a civil dispute into a criminal prosecution is an abuse of law. The court cited the cases "Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station" (2024 INSC 49) and "Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)" (2019(11) SCC 706) in support of its decision.

Interpretation of Cheating: The Court held that there was no initial dishonest intent or inducement by the petitioner, thus not meeting the criteria for Section 420 IPC.

Abuse of Legal Process: The petitioners' actions were deemed not to constitute cheating, and initiating criminal proceedings for a contractual breach was seen as an abuse of the judicial process.

Decision: The FIR No. 38 dated 01.07.2022 was quashed, with the Court directing that civil liabilities should not be transformed into criminal cases.

Date of Decision: March 15, 2024

Manpreet Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and another

Similar News