In a significant legal ruling, the Delhi High Court has intervened to prevent the abuse of court process in a commercial dispute case involving parties in business transactions. The judgment highlights the court’s duty to ensure justice while distinguishing between civil and criminal matters. This case sheds light on the importance of maintaining the integrity of legal proceedings and upholding fairness in the judicial process.
Facts
- The accused received goods from the complainant on various dates in 2010 and 2011.
- The accused assured the complainant of transferring Rs. 2 lakhs through a draft on 20.03.2011.
- Based on this assurance, the complainant supplied further goods to the accused on 23.03.2011 and 11.05.2011.
- However, the complainant never received the draft as promised by the accused, leading to an unpaid amount of Rs. 2,63,779.
- The complaint was filed under sections 418/420/504/506 of the IPC against the accused.
- The inquiry report was submitted to the court by the police station, and the petitioner has been summoned by the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Arguments
- Petitioner argues that the Respondent chose not to file a civil suit but resorted to criminal proceedings to pressure the Petitioner.
- Petitioner denies any intention to make payment for the goods supplied by the Respondent.
- Respondent claims further goods were supplied based on false assurances of a Demand Draft sent by the Petitioner.
- Respondent alleges that the Petitioner defaulted in making payments for the goods supplied.
- Petitioner asserts that the complaint should be quashed as the dispute is civil in nature but has been given a criminal color with mal intent.
- The petitioner stated during the police inquiry that the goods were of defective quality.
- No document was produced by the petitioner to demonstrate any prior complaint made regarding the goods’ quality.
- The requirements for the offence under Sections 418/420 of the IPC are fulfilled in this case.
- The complaint against the petitioner is valid and the Metropolitan Magistrate appropriately summoned the petitioner as an accused.
Analysis
- The complaint filed by the original Petitioner and the other party involved in business transactions revealed unpaid invoices by the Petitioner.
- Criminal proceedings should not be used for civil dispute resolution or debt recovery purposes.
- The Petitioner had made payments to the other party, contradicting claims of dishonest intentions.
- The complaint was based on concealing important facts and possibly for a time-barred debt.
- The complaint did not mention payments made by the Petitioner post the alleged last invoices.
- The magistrate’s duty is not just to establish a prima facie case but also to ensure sufficient grounds for proceeding.
- High Court has the authority to determine if essential criminal offence elements are present.
- The High Court must exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC sparingly and only to prevent the abuse of the court process or secure justice.
- Determining if a complaint discloses a criminal offense depends on the nature of the alleged act.
- The High Court should be cautious of civil disputes disguised as criminal offenses.
- If a civil remedy is available and utilized, the High Court should quash the criminal proceeding to prevent court process abuse.
- Recent cases like R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana and Sachin Garg v. State of U.P. support the principle of preventing the abuse of court process in civil/commercial dispute cases.
- Allegations made by the complainant do not amount to the offences the appellant has been summoned for trial.
- Complaint and the petitioner as an accused are liable to be quashed.
- Commercial dispute has been wrongly turned into a criminal case when it should have been resolved in a civil court.
- Magistrate failed to properly consider the summons issuance.
- High Court also failed to prevent abuse of power in this criminal case.
Decision
- The petition is allowed as per the terms mentioned.
- The pending application has been disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: SANJAY BAJAJ Vs. STATE OF NCT AND ANR. (2024:DHC:3902)
Case Number: CRL.M.C.-1877/2022
