SC Quashes Criminal Case, Says Civil Disputes Cannot Masquerade as Criminal Offences

The Supreme Court has held that High Courts, while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973, can examine whether a matter essentially of civil nature is being pursued under the garb of a criminal complaint to serve oblique purposes.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan, while setting aside an April 2019 order of the Allahabad High Court that had refused to quash a criminal complaint pending against Urmila Devi and others under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case, which stemmed from a dispute over inheritance of agricultural land, had been pending for over two decades.

The complaint accused the appellants, daughters-in-law of the deceased testator of forging a 1993 unregistered Will to usurp property bequeathed to them, allegedly in circumvention of a registered sale deed executed by one of the testator’s sons in favour of the complainant.

The Court noted, “It is writ large on the face of the record that the complaint case has been employed as a circuitous tool to abuse the process of law, especially after the complainant failed to pursue the remedies available to him.”

The testator, apprehensive that his third son Ashish Kumar’s alcoholism might jeopardise his estate, had executed an unregistered Will in December 1993, bequeathing all his properties to his four daughters-in-law. After his death in January 1994, Ashish Kumar executed a registered sale deed in favour of the complainant (Balram).

The appellants, unaware of the sale deed, sought mutation of the properties based on the Will, which was allowed by the Tehsildar in September 1994.

Subsequently, the appellants filed a civil suit seeking injunction against the complainant, resulting in an ex-parte interim order in July 1997.

The complainant’s objections to the mutation were dismissed for non-prosecution in 1998.

It was only in 2001, seven years after the mutation, and years after other judicial setbacks, that the complainant filed a private criminal complaint, alleging conspiracy and forgery.

The CJM, Basti, took cognizance and issued summons. The appellants moved the High Court to quash the complaint under Section 482 CrPC, but the court declined, stating that the veracity of the Will was a matter of trial.

Overruling the High Court, the Supreme Court emphasised that courts must be vigilant against the misuse of the criminal process. Citing Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre (1988), it held that proceedings should be quashed where chances of conviction are bleak and continuing prosecution serves no useful purpose.

“We fail to see how it could be alleged that the accused-appellants cheated and dishonestly induced the complainant. Neither do we find any criminal breach of trust, nor any impersonation, nor inducement of delivery of property,” the bench noted.

The judgment also invoked State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) to reaffirm that inherent powers under Section 482 must be used to prevent abuse of process, particularly when criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intent.

Reliance was also placed on recent rulings in R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam (2019), Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019), and Vishal Noble Singh v. State of U.P. (2024), where the Court reiterated that civil disputes should not be disguised as criminal cases to harass opponents.

Quashing the proceedings, the Court underscored that the criminal complaint had been a “delayed afterthought” intended to circumvent prior civil proceedings.

“The instant case is just another one in a string of cases filed in recent years that seek to disguise a civil dispute as criminal,” the Court said.

The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 627 of 2002 pending before the CJM, Basti were quashed.

The Court clarified that its observations would not affect any pending civil proceedings.

Case Title: Urmila Devi & Others v. Balram & Another

Judgment Date: July 31, 2025

Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan