A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India quashed the FIR against the appellants in a criminal case involving allegations of cheating, criminal conspiracy, and forgery under sections 506, 420, 467, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court observed that the dispute stemmed from a civil matter concerning property ownership and should not have been given the cloak of criminality. It ruled that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had erred in refusing to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when civil litigation was already underway.

Keywords: Criminal proceedings, Civil dispute, Quashing FIR, Section 482 CrPC, Abuse of process.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Dr. Sonia Verma & Anr. v. The State of Haryana & Anr.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 1433 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
07 March 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

vi) Author:
Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation:
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 673 : 2024 INSC 227

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Sections 506, 420, 467, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None

x) Related Law Subjects:
Criminal Law, Civil Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellants, practicing doctors operating a maternity hospital in Rewari, Haryana, were embroiled in a property dispute involving claims of forgery and misrepresentation over the sale deed of the hospital land. They sought protection from criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent, who alleged ownership of the same property. The High Court declined their request for quashing the FIR, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellants were tenants paying rent for the hospital land owned by Kaptan Singh, the husband of Respondent No. 2.
2. The appellants later claimed ownership of the property by purchasing it through a registered sale deed from Sher Singh for ₹43,00,000.
3. Respondent No. 2 alleged ownership through a prior transfer deed and accused the appellants of fabricating the sale deed in collusion with Sher Singh.
4. Following the appellants’ initiation of a civil suit for permanent injunction, Respondent No. 2 filed an FIR alleging criminal forgery.
5. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ petition to quash the FIR, leading to this appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the dispute, essentially civil in nature, justifies the initiation of criminal proceedings.

ii) Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The appellants contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature and involved competing claims of property ownership.

ii) They argued that criminal proceedings were initiated as an abuse of process, particularly after the commencement of their civil suit.

iii) They highlighted their good faith in purchasing the property and their continued bonafide use of the hospital premises.

iv) The appellants emphasized the High Court’s failure to consider the broader litigation history between the parties.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The State argued that prima facie evidence existed to support the allegations of criminal forgery.

ii) It was contended that the High Court correctly upheld the FIR, as the elements of criminal offenses were sufficiently made out.

iii) The respondents argued that the existence of a civil dispute did not preclude criminal proceedings where forgery and misrepresentation were alleged.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 506: Criminal intimidation.
• Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 467: Forgery of a valuable security.
• Section 120-B: Criminal conspiracy.
• Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

ii) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

• Section 482: Inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:
The Court ruled that disputes of a civil nature, especially involving property ownership, should not be given criminal overtones unless there is clear evidence of criminal conduct. It reiterated the limited scope of criminal law in adjudicating essentially civil disputes.

b. Obiter Dicta:
The Court observed that Respondent No. 2’s initiation of criminal proceedings after the civil suit was suspect and indicative of mala fides.

c. Guidelines:

1. Civil disputes should not be criminalized unless the criminal intent is evident.
2. High Courts must exercise their powers under Section 482 CrPC cautiously to prevent misuse of law.
3. Parties must pursue appropriate civil remedies for property-related disputes.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the distinction between civil and criminal jurisdictions. It highlights the judiciary’s responsibility to prevent the misuse of criminal proceedings in civil disputes. The case is a pivotal reminder of the need to scrutinize the context and intent behind the initiation of criminal complaints.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673.

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.