Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
Introduction:
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position that the mere existence of civil proceedings or remedy does not bar criminal prosecution, especially when allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The judgment came in the context of a commercial dispute that involved allegations of cheating and forgery, where the High Court had quashed the FIR citing parallel civil litigation.
- Section 420 IPC(Now 318 of BNS) – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
- Section 467 IPC(Now 338 of BNS) – Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
- Section 468 IPC(Now 336 of BNS) – Forgery for purpose of cheating
- Section 471 IPC(Now 340 of BNS) – Using as genuine a forged document
- Section 120B IPC(Now 61 of BNS) – Criminal conspiracy
- Section 482 CrPC(Now 528 of BNSS) – Inherent powers of High Court to quash FIR
Facts of the Case:
The dispute arose from an agreement to sell between the parties. Both parties filed cross-FIRs, and civil suits were also initiated regarding the same transaction. The FIR in question alleged offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, and 120B of IPC, i.e., forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR, stating that it was essentially a civil dispute.
Issues Before the Court:
- Whether the institution of civil proceedings bars the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings under the IPC?
- Whether the FIR discloses prima facie cognizable offences warranting investigation?
- Was the High Court justified in quashing the FIR on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature?
Contentions of the Petitioner
The FIR contains specific allegations of fraud, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
The civil nature of the dispute does not negate the criminal elements involved.
The High Court erred in prematurely quashing the FIR without allowing the matter to be investigated properly.
The FIR discloses serious cognizable offences and deserves to be investigated thoroughly.
Contentions of the Respondents (State & Other Party):
The matter pertains to a commercial transaction and is already subject to civil litigation. The FIR is an abuse of process and intended to exert pressure in the civil matter. The allegations in the FIR do not disclose a criminal offence but are purely contractual in nature. The High Court rightly exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent harassment and multiplicity of proceedings.
Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court and held that the existence of civil proceedings or remedies does not bar criminal proceedings where criminal intent or cognizable offences are alleged.
- Citing earlier decisions like:
- Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (2009) 5 SCC 528
- Lee Kun Hee v. State of UP (2012) 3 SCC 132
- Trisuns Chemicals v. Rajesh Aggarwal (1999) 8 SCC 686
- The Court reiterated the principle that:
"It is trite law that mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute."
The Court emphasized that if a complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, even in a commercial context, investigation cannot be stifled. It was clarified that Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, and 120B IPC involve serious criminal allegations which deserve to be probed. The Court also cautioned against pre-judging the nature of a dispute merely because civil suits are pending.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment, thereby restoring the FIR and permitting police investigation. The Court emphasized that parallel civil litigation cannot be a ground to quash a criminal case when the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence.
