The Supreme Court yesterday held that criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint appear to be of civil nature..“Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.”.The Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and MR Shah held that it is only during the trial that the correctness or otherwise of an allegation shall be decided..“At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused.”.The complainant in the case had lodged a complaint against the Respondents for forgery and preparing false documents leading to the formulation of a development agreement. The complainant alleged that the respondents were liable to be punished for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The complaint was sent for investigation and the Police submitted a report thereafter which stated that the matter appeared to be civil in nature..The Trial Court, however, directed issuance of process to the Respondents which was challenged by the Respondents who filed for revision of this order. The High Court allowed the petition filed by the Respondents and held that since the dispute is of civil nature, carrying out criminal proceedings against the Respondents would amount to “abuse of the process of law.”.The complainant, thus, approached the Supreme Court in appeal..The Supreme Court, in this regard, observed that the Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance, is not required to look into the merits of the evidence advanced or examine whether the same would lead to a conviction or not. The Court said,.“It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons.”.The only time a criminal proceeding can be quashed is if a complaint does not disclose any offence or is found to be “frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive”. If allegations made do not constitute an offence, only then the same can be quashed by the High Court, the judgment states..Pre-trial procedure does not require a “meticulous analysis” of the case or evaluation of whether the complaint would lead to conviction or acquittal. The High Court would not be right to interfere if, on a reading of the complaint and statements made, ingredients of an offence are made out..“At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal offence or not.”.In this case, the court noted that perusal of the complaint, prima face, disclosed offences that were alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations have to be decided only in Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused, the Court held..The Court made it clear that criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint appear to be of a civil nature..“If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.”.Noting the same, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court..Read the judgment below.
The Supreme Court yesterday held that criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint appear to be of civil nature..“Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.”.The Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and MR Shah held that it is only during the trial that the correctness or otherwise of an allegation shall be decided..“At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused.”.The complainant in the case had lodged a complaint against the Respondents for forgery and preparing false documents leading to the formulation of a development agreement. The complainant alleged that the respondents were liable to be punished for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The complaint was sent for investigation and the Police submitted a report thereafter which stated that the matter appeared to be civil in nature..The Trial Court, however, directed issuance of process to the Respondents which was challenged by the Respondents who filed for revision of this order. The High Court allowed the petition filed by the Respondents and held that since the dispute is of civil nature, carrying out criminal proceedings against the Respondents would amount to “abuse of the process of law.”.The complainant, thus, approached the Supreme Court in appeal..The Supreme Court, in this regard, observed that the Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance, is not required to look into the merits of the evidence advanced or examine whether the same would lead to a conviction or not. The Court said,.“It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons.”.The only time a criminal proceeding can be quashed is if a complaint does not disclose any offence or is found to be “frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive”. If allegations made do not constitute an offence, only then the same can be quashed by the High Court, the judgment states..Pre-trial procedure does not require a “meticulous analysis” of the case or evaluation of whether the complaint would lead to conviction or acquittal. The High Court would not be right to interfere if, on a reading of the complaint and statements made, ingredients of an offence are made out..“At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal offence or not.”.In this case, the court noted that perusal of the complaint, prima face, disclosed offences that were alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations have to be decided only in Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused, the Court held..The Court made it clear that criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint appear to be of a civil nature..“If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.”.Noting the same, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court..Read the judgment below.
