A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case centers on the appellants’ plea to quash a criminal complaint filed by the second respondent, alleging offenses under Sections 420, 406, 424, and 120-B of the IPC. The complaint originated from an agreement for sale, later settled out of court. Despite the withdrawal of related civil claims and acknowledgment of settlement, the second respondent persisted with criminal proceedings. The High Court declined to quash the complaint, citing procedural barriers under Section 362, CrPC and reliance on its earlier orders. The Supreme Court emphasized that the continuation of the complaint, despite the second respondent relinquishing claims, amounted to abuse of process. It quashed the complaint, upholding the appellants’ contentions.

Keywords: Quashing, Agreement for Sale, Out-of-Court Settlement, Section 362 CrPC, Abuse of Process.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Sardar Ravi Inder Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 2807 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
08 July 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

vi) Author:
Justice Abhay S. Oka

vii) Citation:
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 127; 2024 INSC 472

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 362, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Sections 420, 406, 424, and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Article 226, Constitution of India

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
Not applicable.

x) Case is Related to:
Criminal Law, Procedural Law, Abuse of Process, Contractual Disputes.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This case originated from agreements for the sale of properties between the appellants and the second respondent. The respondent alleged that the appellants failed to execute the sale deeds and subsequently accused them of criminal misconduct. A civil suit for specific performance filed by the second respondent was withdrawn after an out-of-court settlement. Despite this, criminal complaints persisted, questioning whether they were legitimate or an abuse of legal process.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Agreements and Payments:
   The appellants entered agreements with the second respondent and his brother Uma Shankar in 2001 to sell certain properties. A sum of ₹28,01,000 was paid as advance consideration.

2. Civil Suit:
   In 2005, the second respondent filed a suit for specific performance, alleging the appellants’ refusal to execute the sale deeds. This suit was withdrawn in 2008, citing a settlement and return of all payments with additional compensation.

3. Criminal Complaints:
   Despite settlement, the second respondent filed two criminal complaints in 2007, alleging conspiracy and fraudulent acts by the appellants.

4. High Court Proceedings:
   The appellants’ efforts to quash the complaints were denied by the High Court, which cited procedural limitations under Section 362 CrPC.

5. Supreme Court Appeal:
   The appellants approached the Supreme Court, claiming that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was an abuse of legal process, particularly given the second respondent’s voluntary relinquishment of claims.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the High Court erred in relying on Section 362 CrPC to bar reconsideration of quashing pleas?
2. Whether the continuation of the criminal complaint constituted an abuse of legal process?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellants argued that the out-of-court settlement conclusively resolved the dispute, and the respondent had no remaining claims over the properties.
2. They emphasized the respondent’s application for withdrawal of the suit, wherein he explicitly relinquished all rights.
3. They contended that the High Court adopted a hyper-technical approach by invoking Section 362 CrPC, disregarding the substantive nature of their writ petition under Article 226.
4. They highlighted that the criminal proceedings persisted despite prior dismissal of similar complaints, showcasing malicious intent and an abuse of process.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondent maintained that the criminal complaints were legitimate, as the appellants failed to fulfill contractual obligations under the agreements for sale.
2. They argued that procedural barriers under Section 362 CrPC barred the appellants from re-agitating matters already addressed in prior revision proceedings.
3. They asserted that the appellants’ reliance on the civil suit’s withdrawal was irrelevant, as criminal liability operates independently of civil remedies.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 362, CrPC: Restricts courts from altering final judgments, except to correct clerical errors.
2. Sections 420, 406, 424, and 120-B, IPC: Relates to cheating, criminal breach of trust, dishonest concealment, and criminal conspiracy.
3. Article 226, Constitution: Provides the High Courts with the authority to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights or addressing other grievances.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that the continuation of the criminal complaint, despite an explicit settlement and relinquishment of claims, amounted to an abuse of process. It emphasized that procedural barriers under Section 362 CrPC were inapplicable to substantive petitions under Article 226.

b. Obiter Dicta:
The judgment underscored the principle that criminal law should not be weaponized to settle civil disputes, particularly where amicable settlements exist.

c. Guidelines:

1. Criminal Proceedings and Civil Settlements: Courts must carefully scrutinize whether criminal complaints serve genuine legal purposes or amount to harassment.
2. Procedural Provisions: Technical procedural provisions like Section 362 CrPC should not hinder substantive justice.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings cannot perpetuate once disputes are conclusively resolved through settlement. It highlights the importance of distinguishing between genuine claims and abuse of legal processes.

REFERENCES

1. State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, [2004] Suppl. 6 SCR 460.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Constitution of India.