Kerala High Court: Shutting Doors To Criminal Courts Solely Because A Party Pursued Civil Remedies Would Be A Travesty Of Justice
The Kerala High Court held that a pending civil suit on the same subject matter cannot be taken as a reason to eschew specific criminal accusations.
The Kerala High Court has held that shutting the doors to a Criminal Court solely because a party opted for a civil remedy to mitigate the loss caused by the wrongful acts constituting specific criminal offences would amount to “travesty of justice.”
The Court dismissed the Petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by the accused seeking to quash the charges under Sections 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC. The Bench held that the mere fact that the dispute between the parties was also a subject matter of a pending civil suit cannot be taken as a reason to eschew the specific criminal accusations.
A Single Bench of Justice G Girish held, “The mere fact that a dispute partakes the character of civil nature leading to the institution of a suit by one of the parties against his counterpart, does not mean that the objectionable acts alleged in that case could never constitute a criminal offence. It would amount to travesty of justice to shut out the doors of criminal court against a party for the sole reason that he had opted for civil remedy to mitigate the loss caused to him due to the wrongful acts committed by his opponent, which would also constitute specific criminal offences.”
Advocate N.K. Mohanlal appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate Varghese C. Kuriakose represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The complainant had alleged that the Petitioners had fraudulently induced her into executing a sale deed of her property under the pretext of securing a loan for her daughter’s marriage. She alleged that the amount was misappropriated by the Petitioners, instead of remitting the same in the loan account. When she started repaying the loan in installments, she later discovered that the Petitioners had not remitted the amounts to the bank, leading to SARFAESI proceedings against her property.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that the complainant had filed a suit to retrieve her property but emphasised that her allegation of being defrauded by the Petitioners, who exploited her financial distress to take her property, could not be ignored.
The Court remarked, “It is true that Courts are to be vigilant against the nefarious attempts of unscrupulous litigants to drag the opponents in civil disputes to criminal prosecution by giving the colour of criminality to such disputes to pressurize and coerce them to accede to their demands. Such complaints where the core issue of civil liability is attempted to be portrayed as cheating or criminal breach of trust, are to be weeded out at the threshold, not only to avoid unnecessary harassment to the opposite party, but also to save the precious time of courts which is to be utilized for the resolution of genuine issues.”
“But at the same time, the fact that many of the issues relating to breach obligations are inseparably linked with the elements constituting the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, cannot be ignored by criminal courts,” the Bench explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “Therefore, the mere fact that the dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent is the subject matter of a suit pending before the Sub Court, North Paravur, cannot be taken as a reason to eschew the specific accusations levelled by the second respondent against the petitioners about the cheating committed pursuant to a criminal conspiracy.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: K.R. Harikrishnan & Anr. v. Sub Inspector Of Police & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:19577)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate N.K.Mohanlal
Respondents: Advocate Varghese C.Kuriakose; Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj N.R.
