Skip to main content

If allegations involve both civil and criminal dispute then criminal proceedings cannot be quashed

In Harimohan Pawaiya v. State of M.P. & Anr., the matter before the Hon'ble MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT GWALIOR BENCH, was that an FIR was lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 on 28.02.2010 alleging therein that the applicant is engaged in the business of sale of second hand vehicles. The complainant had agreed to purchase two old Maruti 800 cars and, therefore, he had given Rs.1,50,000/- to the applicant. The applicant had given the original papers of the said cars but the delivery of the vehicles was not given on the ground that some repairing works are still required to be done. However, even after passing of about 2 years neither the applicant has refunded the amount nor has given the delivery of two old Maruti 800 cars.

On the application of the applicant, the matter was also inquired into by the CSP Jhansi Road, District Gwalior. The CSP by its report dated 15.06.2010 held that although the complainant has stated that he had paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the applicant but he has not produced any documents in support of that contention. On the contrary, a receipt of Rs.50,000/- has been issued by the applicant. It was further opined that on the basis of the documents available on record, it is not proved that the applicant has been given an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. In the light of the inquiry report submitted by the CSP, Jhansi Road, Gwalior, it appears that the police filed the closure report. The respondent after coming to know about filing of the closure report filed an application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC and objected to the closure report filed by the police. The Magistrate by considering the complaint as well as the documents furnished with the closure report rejected the closure report filed by the police and took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2012, the applicant filed a criminal revision which too has suffered dismissal by order dated 24.01.2013. Hence, this petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of CrPC.

The Hon'ble High Court referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012), held that if the facts merely discloses the breach of contract or civil dispute then the complainant cannot be permitted to give a colour of criminal offence but where the allegations involve the civil as well as the criminal dispute then the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the case is of civil in nature. If the allegations as made in the FIR are considered on their face value then it would be clear that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the applicant and the original papers of two old Maruti 800 cars were also handed over to the respondent No.2 by the applicant. It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that the delivery of the vehicles could not be given because of some technical snag. It is further mentioned that the applicant is neither giving the delivery of the vehicle nor is returning the money.

10. Whether, it is a mere breach of contract or whether there was a mere failure on the part of the applicant to keep his promise is a question, which is to be decided at the Trial. If for one reason or another the applicant was not in a position to give the delivery of two old Maruti 800 cars to the respondent No.2 then he could have refunded the amount so collected by him from the respondent No.2.

11. So far as the report of the CSP as well as the closure report filed by the police are concerned, suffice it to say that the same are not binding upon the Magistrate.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more