A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case delves into the allegations and counter-allegations between private parties involving unethical monetary transactions for securing employment. The appellant challenged the High Court’s dismissal of their petition seeking to quash an FIR alleging financial impropriety and deceit. The Supreme Court, addressing the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the unlawful nature of the alleged contract, quashed the FIR, citing abuse of legal process. The Court emphasized the need for police caution in cases with dubious private disputes. This case underscores the judiciary’s vigilance against exploitation of the criminal justice system for coercive recovery of money.

Keywords: Quashing, Counter-allegations, Coercion, Unlawful Contract, Abuse of Process of Law

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 1007 of 2024

iii) Judgement Date:
19 February 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Hon’ble Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma

vi) Author:
Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation:
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 364; 2024 INSC 117

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 173(2)
• Constitution of India: Article 226

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Criminal Law, Procedural Law, Constitutional Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arose from a series of counter-complaints between the appellant and respondent regarding monetary transactions for securing employment. The appellant, after paying significant sums to the respondent for a job for his brother, alleged fraud when no job materialized. In retaliation, the respondent accused the appellant of similar misconduct concerning her daughter’s job. After prior inquiries into the complaints, the respondent filed an FIR in 2022, which the appellant sought to quash, claiming mala fide intentions and unexplained delays.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In April 2019, the respondent (Rajkumari Maravi) allegedly paid the appellant ₹4 lakhs to secure a job for her daughter, with the assurance of placement within three months.
2. In 2021, the appellant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent had taken ₹1 lakh for securing a job for his brother but failed to deliver.
3. The police conducted a preliminary inquiry into both complaints in 2021, finding mutual allegations but no substantial evidence.
4. Despite prior inquiries, the respondent filed an FIR in July 2022, claiming the appellant had not returned the ₹4 lakhs paid in 2019.
5. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition challenging the FIR, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the unexplained delay of three years in filing the FIR justified its quashing.
ii) Whether the transaction, being inherently unlawful, vitiates any claim for recovery through criminal proceedings.
iii) Whether the FIR was an abuse of the legal process aimed at coercive recovery.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The appellant contended that the FIR was mala fide, filed as a counterblast to his earlier complaint, and intended to harass him through criminal coercion.
ii) The FIR disclosed no cognizable offense, as the alleged transaction was unlawful, involving payment for government employment.
iii) The delay of over three years without adequate explanation rendered the allegations dubious and inadmissible.
iv) The appellant emphasized that prior inquiries conducted by the police had already found no actionable evidence against him.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The respondent argued that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense of cheating and criminal breach of trust, necessitating investigation.
ii) The allegations in the FIR, coupled with the cash transactions and non-performance of the agreement, established a prima facie case.
iii) The delay in filing the FIR was attributed to the appellant’s tactics and threats, discouraging earlier complaints.
iv) The respondent asserted that quashing the FIR would deprive her of legal recourse to recover the defrauded amount.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi
The Court observed that the FIR, filed three years after the alleged transaction without satisfactory explanation, indicated mala fide intent. The unlawful nature of the transaction precluded any valid legal claim for recovery. The FIR appeared to be a means of exerting pressure on the appellant rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

b. Obiter Dicta
The Court stressed the need for law enforcement to exercise heightened caution in private disputes involving unethical transactions. Such cases often distract police from their primary role of maintaining public order and justice.

c. Guidelines

1. FIRs filed after inordinate delays, without explanation, warrant judicial scrutiny.
2. Criminal proceedings cannot substitute civil remedies, especially in unlawful contracts.
3. Law enforcement must prioritize societal interests over contentious private disputes.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that the criminal justice system cannot be exploited for settling private scores or recovering money under coercion. The emphasis on police caution serves as a deterrent against frivolous or malicious complaints, preserving legal resources for genuine grievances.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335: Guidelines for quashing FIRs.
ii) Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2006 SC 1322: Delay in filing FIR.
iii) Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470: Abuse of legal process.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 154, 173.
ii) Constitution of India: Articles 226, 136.