Criminal Case Can Be Quashed If Civil Dispute Is Pending And No Criminal Intent Is Found: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on July 31 reiterated that when there is no element of criminality, both civil and criminal proceedings on the same issue cannot be allowed to continue simultaneously, as it would constitute an abuse of the legal process and justify the Court’s intervention to quash the criminal case.
The complainant alleged that the accused misled him into spending time and money on legal disputes over a property and later entered into an Agreement to Sell (ATS) and executed a GPA in his favour. However, the accused revoked the GPA, transferred the property to another party after receiving ₹2.02 crore, and refused to honour the ATS. The complainant filed a civil suit and then lodged a criminal complaint. After the High Court dismissed the plea to quash the FIR, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah stated, “From a bare reading of Section 405 of the IPC, criminal breach of trust would arise only in a situation where the accused in any manner has been entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property and dishonestly misappropriates or converts the same to his own use, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property. Here, it is not a case where the accused were entrusted with the subject property. The subject property belongs to them and they had rights over it as owners with title. Thus, the very foundation for invoking Section 406 of the IPC falls to the ground.”
The Bench also observed, “Coming to the second question i.e., whether civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same set of allegations qua the same person(s), the answer stricto sensu, is that there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, a civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR, as pointed out, inter alia, in P Swaroopa Rani v M Hari Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC 528.”
The Court emphasized that the requirement laid down in Priyanka Srivastava is mandatory, intended to protect citizens from misuse of the legal process through frivolous or vindictive complaints. Any proceedings initiated without the required affidavit can be quashed solely on that ground. In this case, since the necessary legal elements were not satisfied, the Bench quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and cognizance order.
Additionally, it directed that no third-party rights should be created in the disputed property until the Court decides Bangalore Development Authority’s Special Leave Petition (SLP).
Read Here: