Civil remedy no absolute bar to initiate criminal proceedings: SC

The court said that criminal investigation ought not to be scuttled at the threshold except in cases where the complaint ex facie does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

New Delhi: Emphasising that mere existence of a civil remedy does not by itself bar criminal proceedings if allegations prima facie disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, the Supreme Court has allowed criminal proceedings to continue in respect of creation of forged General Powers of Attorney, execution of sale deeds, and subsequent confirmation deeds for the same survey land in Bengaluru.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that criminal investigation ought not to be scuttled at the threshold except in cases where the complaint ex facie does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.   

In a recent judgment, the court allowed an NRI from Canada, Accamma Sam Jacob against the Karnataka High Court's order of September 28, 2016 which quashed complaints against accused persons.

In cases where serious allegations of fraud, forgery, trespass and criminal conspiracy affecting a large group of persons were involved, the High Court ought to have exhibited restraint while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the bench said.

The bench also pointed out, this court on November 28, 2024 allowed the appeals involving the developer-Joseph Chacko on similar allegations and set aside the High Court's judgment of October 25, 2016.

"The power of the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interdict investigation is to be exercised with great circumspection, bearing in mind the statutory duty of the investigating agency to inquire into cognizable offences,'' the bench said.

While quashing the proceedings, the court found that the High Court proceeded to examine documents relied upon by the accused-respondents, including the sale deeds executed in their favour, and treated the same as determinative of the dispute and observed that the sale deeds must be cancelled, before the criminal law could be set into motion.   

"Such an exercise was clearly beyond the permissible scope of scrutiny in a petition for quashing under Section 482 of CrPC. Consideration of defence material, including sale deeds or other title documents would necessarily involve adjudication on disputed questions of fact, which fall squarely within the domain of investigation and, if necessary, trial,'' the bench said.

The court held it was not at all justified for the High Court to have quashed proceedings merely on the ground that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature.  

"By entering into an evaluation of the dispute on merits and proceeding to quash the order directing investigation, the High Court effectively stifled the investigative process at its inception. Such an approach runs contrary to the principles consistently laid down by this court,'' the bench said.

Interference by the HC at the stage of Section 156(3) of CrPC would amount to conducting a mini-trial and would be wholly impermissible, the bench said. 

"Permitting such defence material to be weighed at the threshold would frustrate and defeat the very purpose of directing an investigation by the police," the bench said, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.