We Are Flooded With Cases Of Civil Wrongs Being Made Subject Matter Of Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Imposes ₹50k Cost On UP State
The Supreme Court allowed a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Allahabad High Court's Judgment which dismissed a Petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The Supreme Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000/- on the Uttar Pradesh State saying that it is flooded with cases of civil wrongs being made subject matter of criminal proceedings.
The Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed a Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The two-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar remarked, “We are also constrained to impose costs of ₹50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on the State of Uttar Pradesh as, in spite of repeated judgments/orders of this Court, we are being flooded with cases of civil wrongs being made the subject matter of criminal proceedings by filing chargesheets, etc.”
AOR Manohar Pratap represented the Appellants while AOR Ankit Goel represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellants had entered into an oral agreement to sell a godown to the Respondent for a consideration of ₹1,35,00,000/- in June 2020. The Respondent and her husband claimed that they had paid ₹19,00,000/- towards part-sale consideration between June and September 2020. As per the Appellants’ case, the Respondent had to pay 25% of the total sale consideration amount as advance on or before September 15, 2020; however, she was unable to pay the same. It was further alleged that a cheque of ₹10,00,000/- given by the Respondent was bounced due to insufficient funds. After about one year, the Appellants sold the property via registered Sale Deed at the lower price of ₹90,00,000/- statedly due to changed circumstances. The Appellants claimed that they had suffered losses of ₹45,00,000/- on account of the failure of the Respondent and her husband.
Neither the Appellants nor the Respondent initiated any civil proceedings. Rather, the Respondent approached the Metropolitan Magistrate for registration of an FIR but her Application was dismissed. Thereafter, she filed another Criminal Complaint and the same was also dismissed. She then directly approached the Police Station and registered an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 354, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Being aggrieved and apprehending their arrest, the Appellants filed an Application for grant of anticipatory bail and the same was granted till the filing of chargesheet. On the chargesheet being filed, the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the Appellants. Resultantly, they filed a Petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence, they approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “We are constrained to pass this detailed speaking order, as it is noticed that, notwithstanding the law clearly laid down by this Court on the difference between a breach of contract and the criminal offence of cheating, we are continuously flooded with cases where the police register an FIR, conduct investigation and even file chargesheet(s) in undeserving cases.”
The Court said that the chargesheet in this case is bereft of particulars and details required and mandated in terms of Section 173(2) of the CrPC, which merely reproduces the contents of the FIR which makes reference to the payments made as well as the allegation that in the revenue records, the godown in question was recorded in the name of the son of the Appellant.
“It is noted that the appellant, Rikhab Birani, informed the complainant that Rakesh Birani had expired. The complainant had then requested refund of money, etc. However, the FIR does not state the material and evidence available and collected during the course of the investigation to establish the offences under Sections 420, 406, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Clearly, the ingredients of the aforesaid are not established and made out”, it further noted.
The Court, therefore, imposed a cost on the Uttar Pradesh State to be paid within a period of six weeks. It also clarified that it will be open to the State to conduct internal enquiries and collect the amount from the delinquent and responsible officers.
“We would have imposed costs on the complainant-respondent No.2 also but are refraining from doing so on account of the possibility that she was persuaded and guided by wrong legal advice”, it added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the High Court’s Judgment.
Cause Title- Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 512)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Manohar Pratap
Respondents: AORs Ankit Goel, Gaurav Singh, Advocates Kamlesh Kumar Maurya, and Chandrakanta Sahoo.
