Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, May 5: High Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the same was the outcome of civil or criminal disputes between the parties and the same must be scrutinized before its quashment.
The plea has been filed seeking quashing of an order passed by the Additional Munsiff, Forest Magistrate, Jammu in terms of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on a complaint preferred by the complainant and consequent registering of FIR at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
The FIR as also the order of court below was questioned primarily on the ground that it has been lodged by the complainant as a counterblast to the two FIRs registered against her by petitioner and that civil disputes pending between the parties have been given a cloak of criminal offences.
The factual matrix of the case is that there is multiple litigation between the parties over the property and the parties have filed litigations before the courts below including FIRs and counter FIRs are also registered against each other.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri refused to quash the proceedings of court below as also the FIR by observing that an FIR cannot be dismissed or dropped merely on the ground that it was lodged after the initiation of a civil or criminal proceeding between the parties.
The court, however, said that when such FIRs are filed, those must be closely examined to rule out any ulterior motives behind the criminal prosecution.
“The criminal law cannot be used as an instrument of oppression in the hands of unscrupulous litigants to settle private vendetta. Nobody can be allowed to make an attempt to stretch the contours of civil disputes to impart it a criminal texture”, Justice Sekhri said.
The court further added that a civil wrong may also have a criminal colour. It is the duty of this court to ascertain whether a dispute substantially of civil nature is given a criminal texture or not and the real test is whether the allegations contained in the complaint/FIR, as the case may be, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not.
The court has held that an FIR cannot be dismissed or dropped merely because it follows the filing of a civil or criminal proceeding as each case has to be evaluated on its specific facts, the intent behind the FIR sought to be quashed and the surrounding circumstances.
“However, if an FIR is filed shortly after a civil or a criminal proceedings, it must be scrutinized for ulterior motives. We need to understand that the determination as to whether an FIR is a Counterblast or not, often involves a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.PC and such determination should be left to the wisdom of the trial court”, read the judgment.
The FIR arose from a complaint lodged by one Parshotam Kumar, who alleged that the petitioner-Suchet Singh, along with co-accused, had forged and fabricated a General Power of Attorney to fraudulently transfer and sell a property situated at Jammu. The complainant claimed that the Attorney was misused to execute a sale deed in favour of co-accused and to deprive him of his legitimate rights over the property.
However, the petitioner-Singh contended that the disputed property was purchased by one Charan Dass, through a registered sale deed and a Power of Attorney was executed in his favour by the then-owner. After the death of Charan Dass, Gagan Kumar and another individual executed a sale deed of the property in question in favour of co-accused Raj Kumar and Parshotam Lal.
The case took a civil turn when by filing a civil suit by one of the parties seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed by the petitioner-Singh be declared as null and void, along with consequential relief. However, five years after filing the civil suit, the respondent lodged the present FIR in 2019, alleging fraud and forgery.
Justice Sekhri emphasized that although the mere existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal prosecution, the timing and circumstances under which the FIR is lodged are crucial in determining the genuineness of the complaint.
The Court clarified that civil and criminal remedies can run simultaneously, and it is not uncommon for certain conduct to give rise to both civil and criminal liability. However, it also cautioned that criminal law must not be allowed to be used as a weapon of vengeance or coercion, particularly in private disputes with a dominantly civil flavor.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
