Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Availing Civil Remedies Also: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely on availing parallel civil remedies when there are disputed, unclear and hazy facts from both sides.
The Bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal observed, “This Court does not find the present case to be fall within the category of rarest of rare cases, so as to exercise inherent jurisdiction by this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC, to quash the impugned FIR and investigation thereupon at the stage of investigation. Merely, availing civil remedy as well in addition to lodging impugned FIR by the complainant, may not be taken as exceptional circumstances in the factual background of present case, since there are disputed, unclear and hazy facts from both sides.”
Advocate Pranava Sharma appeared for the Petitioner whereas PP Suresh Kumar appeared for the Respondents.
A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to quash an FIR registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after registering the FIR, the complainant himself filed a civil suit for specific performance based on the same agreement. The suit was decreed in favour of the complainant vide a judgement passed by the District Judge, Thus, the petitioner submitted that the grievance of the complainant was resolved by the civil court and in that view, the FIR along with the investigation should be quashed against the Petitioner.
While relying on the landmark judgment in Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015 SC) and Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka(2024 SC) the Court held that criminal motion must not be quashed at such a nascent stage of investigation merely on account that the Complainant had a civil remedy and he availed that remedy.
“The issues whether petitioner had dishonest intention to cheat the complainant, since beginning or the complainant has put the criminal law in motion, just to harass the petitioner or exert pressure upon him malafidely or for wrecking vengeance, would also come to the picture and unearth only after completion of investigation about entirety of facts related to present case. Therefore, for such reasons also, it would be in the fitness of things, allowing to complete the investigation on the impugned FIR.”, the Court said.
Accordingly, the Court refused to quash the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings and dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Durga Lal Verma v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024: RJ-JP:15239)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Pranava Sharma
Respondents: PP Suresh Kumar and Advocate LL Gupta
