Dispute of civil nature

Record reflected that complainant and petitioners were business partners having a joint venture of stone crushing plants; after winding up the said business, the partners came forward with conflicting civil suits which were pending adjudication before the Court

In such type of cases it was advisable to wait for the verdict of the Civil Court which had the jurisdiction to direct the registration of the case if the Court came to such conclusion ultimately

Although civil liability was independent of the criminal liability and no invariable rule existed to the effect that pending decision of a civil suit, criminal proceedings must be stayed, as it was purely a matter of discretion yet, while exercising the discretion the guiding principle should be to see as to whether the accused was likely to be prejudiced if criminal liability was dependent on the outcome of civil litigation, then criminal proceedings must be stayed, particularly when dispute was with regard to title of the property

Court was not inclined to terminate the criminal proceedings or for that matter to embark upon the order passed by the Justice of Peace in such regard

Simultaneously the complainant himself opted to file a civil suit asking for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding the same machinery vis a vis the accused party and someone else had also filed two suits pertaining to same moveable property (involved in the instant matter)

Thus, conscious of the Court required to stay the criminal proceedings awaiting verdict of the Civil Courts and result of the civil proceedings be regarded conclusive in the matter

In a case where criminal liability was dependent on the result of the civil litigation or was so intimately connected with it that there was a danger of grave injustice being done in the case, or if there was likelihood of conflict of decision between the Civil Court and the criminal Court then in such an event the Criminal Court should also keep its hands off until the civil litigation was disposed of

In the present case, relief claimed qua quashment of FIR and annulment of order of the Justice of Peace was declined and by molding the relief criminal proceedings initiated in furtherance of the impugned FIR were stayed

First Information Report was put to hibernation till the decision of the civil suits from the relevant Court of law

Writ petition was disposed off accordingly.

Complainant stated in FIR that he had given money to petitioner/accused for purchase of land and not by way of entrustment

Matter in dispute was purely of civil nature

No limit could put a clog on exercise of inherent powers of High Court to make such orders as could be necessary to give effect in order to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice

High Court quashed FIR registered against petitioner/accused

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/accused sought quashing of FIR registered against him on the ground that the matter was of civil nature which could only be agitated and adjudicated by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction

Validity

Record showed that petitioner had previously challenged the same FIR by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court conferred under Art. 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and said petition was dismissed by the Court

Subsequently, PLA was also dismissed by the Supreme Court with the direction to the investigating agency to probe into the matter

Bare reading of S.561-A, Cr.P.C showed that High Court could not embark upon the investigation proceedings in order to annul the same, and such-like application asking for quashment of investigation proceedings per se was not maintainable

When police report under S.173, Cr.P.C, was submitted before the Court concerned, question of annulment/quashment of FIR becomes irrelevant and redundant for all its practical purpose, therefore, proper recourse and remedy available to an accused is to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial Court to get himself/herself exonerated under S.249-A, Cr.P.C or under S.265-K, Cr.P.C, as chapter of quashment of FIR stands closed after submission of police report under S.173, Cr.P.C

Petition was meritless, devoid of any force and not maintainable, which was dismissed accordingly.

Forgery for purpose of cheating, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, criminal breach of trust and common intention

Bail, grant of

Dispute of civil nature

Scope

Accused persons seeking pre-arrest bail had allegedly entered into an agreement with the complainant regarding transaction of some immovable property in consideration of certain amount through the accused seeking post-arrest bail

Although the allegation against the accused persons was of cheating and defrauding but the complainant's counsel had stated that the matter was about to patch up between the parties, however, he had raised some allegations against the accused, property dealer

Dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature, which was being given a colour of criminal proceedings

Property Dealer was not the beneficiary of the transaction, as such he had made out a case of bail in his favour

Accused persons were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Contents of the complaint were silent to the effect that why the complainant had kept mum for a period of four years after his illegal dispossession

Mode of dispossession was also not mentioned in the complaint

Long standing possession of accused was enough to hold that the accused did not belong to the class of property grabbers or qabza group

No case under S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was made out rather it appeared that the matter between the parties pertained to a dispute of civil nature

Appeal against conviction was accepted, in circumstances.

Petitioner alleged that she was dispossessed from her owned property and sought restoration of her possession over the suit house as well as the property

Validity

Petitioner was admittedly an issueless widow and the property for which the complaint was filed was the property of her husband jointly owned with the respondents

Petitioner could only inherit 1/4th share from the legacy of her deceased husband

Station House Officer of Police, in his report, had not mentioned any aspect of breach of peace

Patwari had reported that the property was jointly owned and no partition had taken place

Foremost requirement for initiation of proceedings under S. 145, Cr.P.C. was the existence of dispute but in the present case dispute was only of civil nature

No apprehension of breach of peace existed

Petitioner had taken contradictory stance regarding the exact date of her dispossession

Jurisdiction of the criminal court could not be invoked except on the ground of likelihood of breach of peace

Petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or infirmity committed by both the courts below while passing impugned judgments

Petition was dismissed.

Accused was alleged to have dishonestly issued a cheque to the complainant towards fulfillment of sale agreement but the cheque was dishonoured on its presentation

FIR was lodged with a delay of three months

Accused had filed a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction against the complainant

Complainant had also filed an application against the accused in the High Court, which was pending adjudication, as such the parties were in litigation since long with regard to the disputed amount, which appeared to be a dispute of civil nature

Appellant had failed to prove his case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace directing the registration of FIR on the application of the respondent company

Case of company was that the petitioner had continued to retain the company car given to him for the purposes of his employment long after him ceasing to be an employee and thereby committed criminal breach of trust

Contention of petitioner was that an employee of the company had promised to pay his outstanding salary with the commitment that till payment of the due amount he would not be dispossessed from the vehicle

Held; alleged verbal promise, for which no documentary proof was on record, was inconsistent with the application filed by the company before Ex-officio Justice of Peace

Alleged undertaking was not worthy of any credence unless proved in evidence led at the trial

Petitioner had already filed a suit for recovery of his dues from the company, his continued possession did not appear to be warranted in law

Temporary injunction granted by Trial Court was against illegal snatching and in its terms had created an exception for recourse to the legal process

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Complainant assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby his application under Ss. 3 & 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed

Complaint was filed through an attorney

Term 'attorney' legally, in most general sense drew a picture of one who was not speaking for himself but for his 'principal'

Criminal administration of justice recognized only those as a witness or complainant who either had seen; heard or least perceived any fact towards the offence, hence an 'attorney', being not speaking of his own knowledge, did not fall within the meaning of 'witness/complainant'

Attorney could not legally, under such status of attorney, file the FIR or a criminal complaint

Criminal lis or complaint could not be agitated or defended through 'attorney'

Appeal, in the present case, was filed much after the expiry period of limitation

Delay of each day in filing the appeal had to be reasonably explained, which the complainant could not

Complaint's Attorney had not brought on record a single stance to show as to whether he was occupying the subject property or was dispossessed

Lease, in the name of complainant, was not sufficient to fulfill the requirement of the law

Controversy between the parties was a dispute of civil nature for which parties had to approach the civil court

Trial Court had rightly dismissed the complaint

Appeal was dismissed.

Accused was alleged to have dishonestly issued two cheques to the complainant which were dishonoured on presentation to the Bank

Present case was a result of business dispute between the complainant who was a supplier of sirya (iron rods) and the accused was a building contractor

Facts of the case prima facie suggested that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature which was related to business transactions

Complainant had already filed a civil suit for recovery of amount allegedly payable by the accused, which was pending

Deeper appreciation of the facts and evidence through proper trial was required to prove the dishonest intention of the accused while issuing subject cheques which made the accused person's case to be one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Applicant assailed order passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, whereby his direct complaint was dismissed under S.203, Cr.P.C.

Applicant had sought cognizance in the case by alleging that fraud was committed by Mukhtiarkar and Tapedar in collusion with the respondents

Sale deed on the basis of which the applicant had claimed his right over the property was disbelieved by the competent civil court and the same was declared as null and void

Applicant had failed to produce material which constituted any offence allegedly committed by the respondents

Dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature but the applicant in order to create harassment and pressure over the respondents had filed the direct complaint and had tried to convert the civil litigation into criminal

Revision application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed order of Ex-officio Justice of Peace whereby he had dismissed the application of petitioner for registration of FIR by observing that the issue involved in the matter appeared to be of civil nature

Allegation of petitioner was that accused persons along with 10/12 unknown persons with open faces duly armed with deadly weapons came to the petitioner when he along with others was erecting boundary wall of society and made aerial firing, demolished the partition wall and went away by threatening the petitioner of dire consequences

Validity

Act of proposed accused and the allegations in the case were serious in nature, hence, required inquiry/investigation

High Court set aside the order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace and directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned SHO for recording his statement under S.154, Cr.P.C.

Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.

Complainant alleged that he entered into an agreement with the respondent for assignment of various contracts and that he was allotted the premises/store in question

Respondent later on cancelled the said contracts and without adopting legal process removed all the valuable articles lying in the store

Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the dispute between the parties was that of civil nature

Validity

Trial Court was bound to have recorded evidence of the parties, in order to arrive at a just and proper conclusion with regard to the claim of complainant regarding illegal dispossession from the premises in question

Pendency of civil litigation did not debar the complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Order passed by Trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision on merits.

Complainant claimed that accused cheated him by issuing bogus cheque which was dishonoured on presentation before the concerned Bank

First Information Report was lodged with a delay of 4 months and 17 days which delay was not satisfactorily explained

Dispute between the parties was of civil nature, which itself required evidence and for such evidence the matter was pending adjudication before the competent court of law

Ingredients of S. 489-F, P.P.C. were missing in the case

Challan in the case had already been submitted by the police in the Trial Court

Accused had been regularly attending the trial court and had never misused the concession of bail

Accused had successfully made out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail

Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.

Complaint filed under S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed by Trial Court on ground that as per enquiry report, dispute between parties was found to be of civil nature

Validity

Claim of complainant regarding ownership and possession of subject land was based upon Deh Form-VII, which showed mutation in favour of complainant's father

Deh Form-VII was not title document

After death of complainant's father, Record of Rights had not been mutated in favour of his legal heirs

Complainant failed to produce any evidence as to his possession over subject land before alleged dispossession

Complainant did not produce Chowkidar or guard named in his complaint for recording his statement before Inquiry Officer (during enquiry) under S.5(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Accused had not only produced title documents including sketch of subject land but also produced their predecessor (previous owner) before Inquiry Officer, who had admitted execution of sale agreement in favour of accused and handing over of possession of subject land in consequence thereof

No material was available with complainant to establish that accused belonged to any Qabza group or land Mafia or that they had occupied subject land by dispossessing complainant

Title and location of complainant's land was not clear, which could only be decided by civil court

Impugned order was proper and legal, and same, therefore, did not require any interference by High Court

Criminal revision was dismissed in circumstance.

Accused had purchased some leather from the complainant and for payment of outstanding amount, he issued nine cheques in favour of complainant which were dishonoured on presentation before the Bank

Plea of accused was that cheques in question were only given as a guarantee/security

Validity

Although accused was named in the F.I.R., but there was an unexplained delay of more than 5 months in lodging the F.I.R.

Relationship between complainant and accused was that of a seller and purchaser

Dispute between the parties concerned adjustment of a liability and complainant himself failed to mention the dates on which leather was purchased by the accused

Prima facie, dispute seemed to be of a civil nature and for such purpose complainant had the remedy to file a suit for recovery or rendition of accounts before the court of competent jurisdiction

Question as to whether cheques in question were issued towards fulfilment of an "obligation" or as "security" would be seen by the Trial Court after recording of evidence

Offence alleged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.

Accused was behind bars for the last eight months and was no more required for further investigation

Accused was granted bail in circumstances.

F.I.R. lodged by complainant was disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate treating the dispute between the parties to be of civil nature

Police impounded the car from the house of petitioner

Validity

Seized car was not a stolen property and same was purchased by the petitioner in lieu of consideration from complainant

Police was not justified to seize the car

Constitutional petition was allowed

Police was directed to hand over the custody of seized car to the petitioner.

Seized car had neither been forcibly snatched nor found involved in the commission of any offence and the police was not justified in seizing the same from the house of petitioner

Police did not obtain any warrant from the concerned Magistrate to enter into house of petitioner

Conduct of police officer was highly deplorable

Nobody could be allowed to enter into house, there was no reasonable ground that petitioner had committed any offence and in this regard nothing even had been brought on record

High Court directed to hand over the custody of seized car to the petitioner.

Accused had issued the dishonored cheque to the complainant in the backdrop of a business transaction between the parties

Both parties also had previous financial dealings

Dispute between parties was of civil nature and no cogent evidence was available to attract provisions of S.489-F, P.P.C.

Offence alleged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused was no more required for further investigation

Accused was granted bail in circumstances.

Allegation against the accused-lady was that she issued a cheque to the complainant in the backdrop of an agreement to sell, which was dishonoured on presentation due to insufficient funds

Agreement was executed between the parties, wherein it had been mentioned that accused issued the cheque in question as a guarantee instrument to the complainant

Fact that cheque was a guarantee instrument had been impliedly admitted by the complainant in another agreement executed between the parties

Before complainant reported present matter to the police, accused had already filed civil suits qua matter in issue against the complainant, which were pending adjudication

Controversy between the parties was of civil nature and could only be resolved by the civil court, where suits filed by accused were already pending

Question as to whether cheque in question was a guarantee instrument or not and what repercussions would it have on the merits of the trial of the accused, was a significant factor which could only be gone into by the Trial Court after recording evidence at trial

Accused was a lady, therefore, she was covered under S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. and her involvement in the present case due to calculated or ulterior motive of complainant could not be ruled out

Ad interim pre-arrest bail of accused was confirmed in circumstances.

Proposed accused allegedly injured the complainant party and issued threats due to a dispute between the parties over construction upon a common street

Complainant filed an application before Justice of Peace, who disposed of the said application by observing that complainant was advised to appear before the concerned Station House Officer, who would take his statement and if from the statement any cognizable offence was made out, then same should be incorporated in S.154, Cr.P.C. book

Legality

Justice of Peace had jurisdiction to examine whether information disclosed by applicant/complainant did or did not constitute a cognizable offence and if it did, then to direct concerned Station House Officer (SHO) to record an F.I.R. in S.154, Cr.P.C. book

Such exercise was not completed by the Justice of Peace in the present case as he simply stated in his order that applicant/complainant was advised to approach concerned Station House Officer (SHO), who shall record his statement if cognizable offence was made out

Justice of Peace was not supposed to delegate his authority to the Station House Officer in such a casual manner

Before complainant filed application before Justice of Peace, accused had moved an application to the concerned Metropolitan Corporation, stating therein that complainant had encroached upon common property and raised construction on it

Complainant had also filed a harassment application against accused and others

Such conduct of complainant reflected that his application filed before Justice of Peace was tainted with malice

Both parties were next-door neighbours and relatives

Such aspect of the case was not considered by the Justice of Peace

Civil dispute could only be adjudicated by competent civil court and same could not be converted into a criminal case

Directions given to concerned Station House Officer (SHO) by Justice of Peace were in excess of jurisdiction conferred upon him under the law

Application was allowed in circumstances and impugned order of Justice of Peace was set aside.