Attempt to get civil dispute resolved by resorting to criminal proceeding: Rajasthan High Court quashes FIR

Read Time: 11 minutes

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur bench recently quashed the First Information Report (FIR) in a case that was prima facie of civil nature. Court observed that an attempt of the complainant to get the civil dispute resolved by resorting to invoke the jurisdiction of a criminal court amounts to ‘abuse of the process of court’.

A single-judge bench of Justice Birendra Kumar noted, “This Court is of the prima facie view that real dispute between the parties is of civil nature which cannot be adjudicated by a criminal court."

As per the petition moved by the accused persons for quashing of the FIR, the respondent- complainant entered into separate agreements with them to purchase their shares in some plots. Each agreement mentioned that for the plots, a case is pending before the High Court and the petitioners would get the said case disposed of.

Thereafter, the petitioners were to get respondents' respective names mutated in the revenue records and then send a notice of these developments through a registered post to the respondent.

It was also agreed that in receipt of notice from the petitioners, the respondent would make payment of the remaining consideration money within six months and get the sale deed registered and if the petitioners would not abide by the terms and conditions between the parties,the respondent would have a right to get the sale deed registered by order of the court.

The agreements also stated that if the respondent would fail to get the documents registered within six months aforesaid, the petitioners would have a right to utilize the earnest consideration money and the agreement would be deemed to have been canceled automatically.

In furtherance of the same, the petitioners sent legal notices to the respondent informing him about the disposal of the pending case and asked him to make payment of the remaining consideration money and get the registered sale deeds. However, the complainant did not send any reply to those legal notices and subsequently, the petitioners sold a portion.

Against petitioners' this act, the complainant got FIR No. 36/ 2019 registered. The police submitted a negative report and the case remained pending for hearing owing to the protest petition of the complainant.

Before the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter in dispute is performance /non-performance of the agreement to sale between the parties and the responsibility of the party to not act as per agreement and the whole issue can be decided only by a competent civil court and not by a criminal court.

He further argued that the ingredients of offences are not made out as at no point of time, did the petitioners have any dishonest intention. He also submitted that this is the second FIR for the same cause of action which is not permissible in law.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent argued that it has been settled by the Apex Court that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, is required to be more cautious as the jurisdiction is more onerous and more diligent duty is cast on the court.

He asserted that the FIR disclosing cognizable offence should not be quashed at the threshold unless the rarest of the rare case is made out. He also argued that while considering quashing one of the two identical FIRs, the court cannot embark on a detailed examination of the facts contained in the FIR by acting as an appellate court.

However, Court opined that merely because the petitioners failed to honor the agreement, it cannot be said that the petitioners had cheated the respondent.

Court further stated that the complainant was aware of the legal notices sent to him by the petitioners through registered post disclosing details of the developments of the pending matter but he chose not to send a reply and kept mum till the petitioners sold some of the property which was the subject matter of agreement to some other person after expiry of the period of six months as agreed in the agreement.

Court also pointed out that there is no case of the prosecution that any document was forged by the petitioner. “There is no averment at all that the petitioners were involved in making any false document or used the said forged document as a genuine document. Therefore, offenses under Sections 468, 469, 471, and 120-B IPC are also not made out," Court opined.

Conclusively, the court observed that “the complainant had separately entered into an agreement with all the petitioners knowing the fact well that the petitioners have the transferable right in the property, the legal notices sent by the petitioners separately through registered post to the complainant shows that they were always willing and ready to perform their part of the agreement”.

“Thus, the totality of the material available on record discloses the ingredients of none of the offences for which the FIR was registered, therefore, the FIR is not sustainable, for this reason also,” Court held.

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.