Lower than two weeks after a two-judge Supreme Court docket bench presided by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna warned the Uttar Pradesh police in opposition to invoking prison costs in civil instances, even terming it a breakdown of the rule of legislation, one other two-judge bench of the highest court docket on April 29 dominated that “mere establishment of civil proceedings can not act as a bar to investigation of cognisable offences”.
The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan mentioned in its order, “It’s trite legislation that mere establishment of civil proceedings just isn’t a floor for quashing the FIR or to carry that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. This court docket in numerous judgments has held that just because there’s a treatment supplied for breach of contract, that doesn’t by itself dress the court docket to conclude that civil treatment is the one treatment, and the initiation of prison proceedings, in any method, shall be an abuse of the method of the court docket. This court docket is of the view that as a result of the offence was dedicated throughout a industrial transaction, it will not be ample to carry that the criticism didn’t warrant an additional investigation and if essential, a trial.”
Listening to a case of an individual accused of not returning Rs 25 lakh mortgage and being booked below some prison costs, a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar had on April 7 pulled up the UP police saying there was a “pattern” of changing civil instances into prison instances within the state and termed it “breakdown of the rule of legislation”.
The CJI-led bench once more reprimanded the UP police on April 16 whereas listening to a case of alleged breach of contract. “We’re constrained to cross this detailed talking order, as it’s seen that, however the legislation clearly laid down by this court docket on the distinction between a breach of contract and the prison offence of dishonest, we’re repeatedly flooded with instances the place the police register an FIR, conduct investigation and even file chargesheet(s) in undeserving instances. Over the past couple of months, various judgments/orders have been pronounced by this court docket, particularly in instances arising from the state of Uttar Pradesh, deprecating the stance of the police in addition to the courts in failing to differentiate between a civil unsuitable within the type of a breach of contract, non-payment of cash or disregard to and violation of contractual phrases, and a prison offence below Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, the components of that are fairly totally different and require mens rea on the time when the contract is entered into itself to not abide by the phrases thereof.”
The bench of CJI Khanna and Justice Kumar mentioned the SC had within the 2024 judgment in Delhi Race Membership (1940) Restricted and Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and one other “highlighted the superb distinction between the offences of prison breach of belief and dishonest”, observing that the 2 had been antithetical in nature and couldn’t exist concurrently. “Law enforcement officials and courts should fastidiously apply their minds to find out whether or not the allegations genuinely represent the precise offence alleged.”
It additionally referred to different instances the place the apex court docket “noticed {that a} breach of contract doesn’t give rise to prison prosecution for dishonest until fraudulent or dishonest intention is proven proper initially of the transaction. Merely the allegation of failure to maintain a promise is not going to be sufficient to provoke prison proceedings”.
The bench mentioned, “It’s the obligation and obligation of the court docket to train an excessive amount of warning in issuing course of, notably when the matter is actually of civil nature. The prevalent impression that civil treatments, being time-consuming, don’t adequately defend the pursuits of collectors or lenders ought to be discouraged and rejected as prison process can’t be used to use strain. Failure to take action leads to the breakdown of the rule of legislation and quantities to misuse and abuse of the authorized course of.”
Story continues under this advert
The CJI-led bench additionally recalled that “in one more case, once more arising from prison proceedings initiated within the state of Uttar Pradesh, this court docket was constrained to notice recurring instances being encountered whereby events repeatedly tried to invoke the jurisdiction of prison courts by submitting vexatious complaints, camouflaging allegations which can be ex facie outrageous or are pure civil claims. These makes an attempt should not be entertained and ought to be dismissed on the threshold.”
Although the 2 instances, which fashioned the premise of the April 16 and April 29 orders, stem from allegations of breach of contract, their details barely differ.
Within the first, Rikhab Birani and Sadhna Birani had entered an oral settlement to promote Roti Godown in Kanpur to Shilpi Gupta for Rs 1.35 crore in June 2020. Gupta and her husband claimed that they had paid Rs 19 lakh in direction of part-sale consideration between June and September 2020.
Based on the Biranis, Gupta needed to pay 25% of the full sale consideration quantity as advance on or earlier than September 15, 2020, however she was unable to. They requested Gupta to pay the unpaid quantity and full the sale transaction but it surely wasn’t carried out. After about one 12 months, the Biranis bought the property for a lesser worth of Rs 90 lakh “statedly” because of modified circumstances. They contended that they suffered a lack of Rs 45 lakh because of Gupta’s failure to pay the sale consideration quantity and abiding by the oral settlement, they aren’t liable to refund any quantity to her. This led to Gupta instituting a prison case in opposition to them which the SC quashed.
Story continues under this advert
The April 29 order arose from an settlement to promote dated April 12, 2004 executed by Bhai Manjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh in favour of 1 Punit Beriwala on the market of a property on Prithvi Raj Street, New Delhi, for Rs 28 crore. Manjit Singh, being Karta, promised that the property could be free from all encumbrances and that he would get it transformed to freehold earlier than it’s transferred to Beriwala.
Based on Beriwala, he paid Rs 1.64 crore and was given half bodily possession of the servant quarter of the property.
In June 2016, one Ashok Gupta lodged an FIR in opposition to the Singhs alleging that an settlement to promote dated December 29, 2010 for a similar property had been executed in his favour and that he was additionally put in possession of the servant quarter. This FIR was quashed by the Delhi Excessive Court docket.
As he was not supplied paperwork for clear title of the property, Beriwal printed a discover dated July 18, 2020 within the Hindustan Occasions declaring that he had executed an settlement to promote with the Singhs for the topic property.
Story continues under this advert
Following this, each Punjab and Sind Financial institution, Rajendra Place, New Delhi and SREI Infrastructure Finance Restricted and SREI Tools Finance Restricted got here ahead saying Manjit Singh had mortgaged the property with them to safe loans. This led to civil proceedings earlier than the Delhi Excessive Court docket and an FIR by the Financial Offences Wing. By order dated October 17, 2022, the HC quashed the FIR in opposition to Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh following which Beriwal approached the SC. The SC put aside the HC order and revived the FIR in opposition to the duo.