A recent and important decision deal with the use of criminal justice system to resolve civil disagreements. The issue before the Supreme Court of India was, whether there can be a criminal dispute as a settlement of the civil dispute. The case is Urmila Devi v Others. Balram and Another case erected the relevance of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) to suppress criminal prosecutions that are embarked upon in an unfair motive. According to the judgment, which was passed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, courts should be vigilant to ensure that they do not allow the criminal justice system to be turned into a weapon of persecution.
The Case History
The fight was over a family issue with regards to the properties of a man known as Ram Baksh Dubey. Ashish Kumar is the third son of Dubey, who had an alcoholic tendency and so on the day of 23 rd December 1993, he made an unregistered will and bequeathed all of his properties to his four daughters-in-law who are the appellants in the case. His will was clear in this sense that he wanted to preserve his property and that his daughters-in-law and grandchildren should not be denied it. Sadly enough, Dubey died a short time later on January 3, 1994.
After the demise of his father, Ashish Kumar performed a registered sale deed on April 25, 1994. He made the registered sale deed regarding his share of the property in the name of Balram who is the complainant-respondent. The appellants being unaware of this sale deed, had brought about a process of mutation on grounds of the will and a mutation order in their favor was granted on 27th Sept 1994. This case was intensified by the fact that the complainant started meddling in the possession of the appellants on the land and the appellants sought the help of the courts through a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction. In the process, the objections of the complainant against the mutation order were not prosecuted.
The Criminal Complaint and the Further Proceedings
The complainant approached the court of law with a criminal application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. about seven years after the mutation order alleging that one of the sons of the decealed testator, Chandra Prakash, had conspired with the appellants to create a forged will after the testator has passed away to frustrate the sale deed. The case was later registered as a complaint case against the appellants under section 419, 420, 467, 468 as well as section 471 of the Indian penal code which inter-alia covers offense of cheating, cheating by personation and forgery.
The appellants were offended by this, and filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the Allahabad High Court to put an end to the criminal complaint and summons against them. They made the argument that the proceedings amounted to a clear misuse of the legal system, because what they were trying to do was to settle a civil case. After however, a noticeable period of a total sixteen years of delay, their application before the High Court was rejected on grounds that the allegations in their case fulfilled everything contained in the supposed crimes, and that the issue of forgery rested with the actual trial. This made the appellants appeal to the Supreme Court.
Analysis by the Supreme Court of the Issues
With the critical evaluation the Supreme Court plunged into the root problems involved. The Court observed that the criminal complaint was filed much later than the civil proceedings had already begun and after the complainant had exhausted other means of seeking redress at his hand which were the civil and revenue courts. The timeline created a great possibility that the illegitimate criminal proceedings were applied as a circuitous instrument to exploit the process of law. The Court held that there was no prima facie basis to prosecute the appellants on grounds of cheating, cheating by impersonation, or dishonesty inducing the conveyance of any property against the appellants since they were legatees under the will only.
Based on the past leading judgments, the Court has pointed out that a criminal proceeding must not be permitted to proceed, when in some way it is consciously attended to with mala fide, or instituted with some ulterior purpose of reason. The Court made reference to the principles that have been established in cases such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which offers the terms in regard to the situation when a High Court may quash a criminal complaint. Cases where the allegations, though taken literally, do not amount to a crime, where the allegations are so absurd and improbable as no man of sense could possibly resolve whether there is ground enough to carry on the proceeding, or where the proceeding is set on foot maliciously, out of private revenge, are also to be found among these rules.
The Court also pointed at the decision it passed in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, where it was held that a criminal process must not have an oblique intent and that courts were to strike down trials in cases where the victim had little possibility of a conviction. Under the reference of R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha seetharam And Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court stated again that High Courts have a responsibility of looking into the fact whether a dispute which is definitely civil in nature, has been clothed with the garb of a criminal offence.
The Result and its Consequences
In its last judgement, the Supreme Court affirmed that no one of the offenses that were alleged against the appellants were proved. It was a typical example of the fact that some civil conflict was presented as a criminal case There was anxiety on the side of the Court that the complaint case is more than 20 years old that extending the case wil serve no good purpose. Hence, the High Court impugned order was quashed by the Court and the criminal proceedings was also quashed. The Court also made it clear that its comments would not affect any extant civil proceeding between the parties, thus on the one hand, keeping the civil matter within its own merit and on the other hand the malicious criminal prosecution at bay.
The case is key in informing the courts that they should take care to ensure that the system of criminal justice is not misused. It reiterates that inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. needs to be exercised sparingly, and yet it is essential in quashing proceedings which is a flagrant abuse of the process of law. The judgment protects against being tormented by the malaise of malicious prosecutions and deters whether the justice system is used to go after real criminal cases or is used to cover up civil disputes.
Author
For any queries or to publish an article or post on our platform, please email us at contact@legalmaestros.com.
