Page 1

  NON-REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2069 OF 2012  (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 7720 OF 2011)

PARAMJEET BATRA … APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

O R D E R  

Leave granted.  

2. The appellant, respondents 3, 4 an one Rajpal are the  

accused in Criminal Case No. 723 of 2005 (charge-sheet No.  

32/2005)  pending  on  the  file  of  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  

Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.  Respondent 2 is the  

complainant.  The appellant and respondents 3 and 4 filed a  

petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  

(for short “the Code”) in the High Court of Uttarakhand at  

Nainital  for  quashing of the above mentioned proceedings  

and  for  quashing  of   the  order   of   cognizance  dated

Page 2

22/3/2005  passed   thereon  by  the  Judicial  Magistrate,  

Khatima against the appellant and the other accused for the  

offences   punishable  under  Sections  406,  420,  467,  468,  

471, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code  

(for  short  “the IPC”).   By  order  dated  29/09/2011  

Uttarakhand High  Court  dismissed  the  said  petition.   The  

said order is impugned in this appeal.  

3.  Respondent 2 filed a complaint against the appellant,  

respondents 3, 4 and five others at Police Station Kotwali  

Khatima,  District  Udham  Singh  Nagar  on  4/1/2005.  

Respondent 2 inter alia alleged in the complaint that he had  

let out two shops situate in Khatima market to Rajpal Singh  

on fixed written conditions.  After Rajpal Singh vacated the  

shops he wanted to run chicken corner in the said shops.  He  

appointed  the  appellant  as  Manager  and  invested  

Rs.10,000/-  for  purchasing  raw  materials.  Written  

agreement  was  prepared  containing  fixed  terms  and  

conditions.   The  business  picked  up  and  started  fetching  

profit  of  Rs.1,000/-  to  Rs.1,500/-   per  day.  According  to

Page 3

respondent 2, the appellant conspired with others to grab  

the shop.  He filed a civil suit claiming tenancy.  He did not  

give accounts of the profit.  The appellant and other accused  

prepared  false  documents  and  filed  them  in  the  court.  

According to respondent 2, they threatened him that if he  

does not take monthly rent of Rs.750/- he would be killed.  

He has been told that if he gives Rs.3 lakhs then they would  

vacate  the  shop.   Respondent  2’s  further  case  in  the  

complaint  is  that  the  accused  have  grabbed  two  years’  

income  and  materials  worth  Rs.50,000/.  They  have  also  

misappropriated an amount of Rs.10,000/- which was given  

to them in cash by him. According to respondent 2, accused  

have forcibly taken possession of the shop.  After conclusion  

of investigation, charge-sheet was forwarded to the Judicial  

Magistrate,  Khatima,  who  took  cognizance  against  the  

appellant, respondents 3 and 4 and one Rajpal.  

4. Learned counsel  for  the appellant  submitted that the  

complaint discloses civil dispute.   A civil suit has been filed  

by the appellant making similar grievance.  It is pending.

Page 4

Since the Civil Court is seized of the dispute, the High Court  

should have quashed the complaint.  

5. It  is  necessary  to  note here that  office  report  dated  

22/8/2012  indicates  that  the  contesting  respondent  i.e.  

respondent 2 was directed to be served through Resident  

Commissioner  vide  Registrar’s  order  dated  5/12/2011.  He  

has  accordingly  been  served.   He  has,  however,  neither  

cared to appear in-person nor has he engaged any counsel.  

We,  therefore,  proceed  to  deal  with  the  submissions  of  

counsel for the appellant.  

6. Though the complaint attributes forgery and fabrication  

of documents to the appellant and other accused and states  

that  the  appellant  has  grabbed  the  profit  of  the  running  

business and threatened respondent 2, it appears to us to  

be essentially a civil dispute.  Basic grievance of respondent  

2 is that the appellant has not given him accounts of the  

business. Respondent 2 has made a reference to the written  

agreement  under  which  the  appellant  was  appointed  as  

Manager  to  manage  his  business.   The  appellant  has

Page 5

annexed a copy of  the agreement  dated 1/1/2002 to the  

appeal. The agreement discloses that the appellant was to  

receive 25% of the net profit as salary.  The agreement also  

notes that the appellant received Rs.10,000/- in cash for the  

purchase of raw materials.   Admittedly,  the appellant  has  

filed Civil Suit No. 23/2002 against respondent 2 in the court  

of Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), Khatima for permanent injunction  

claiming that he is a tenant of the shop in question.  In that  

suit, he filed an application for temporary injunction.  Copy  

of  order  dated  22/12/2004  passed  on  that  application  

ordering status quo is also annexed to the appeal. The order  

indicates  that  the  appellant  and  respondent  2  have  filed  

documents  in  the  said  suit.    While  granting  status  quo  

order, the trial court has observed that the said documents  

will  have to be proved by the appellant and respondent 2  

and, hence, it  is  necessary to maintain status quo during  

pendency  of  the  suit.  In  the  complaint,  it  is  the  case  of  

respondent 2 that this suit has been filed on the basis of  

fabricated documents.  It is categorically stated on affidavit  

by the appellant that the said suit is still pending.  If the said

Page 6

suit is still pending, then the grievance made by respondent  

2  that  the documents  on which  reliance is  placed by the  

appellant are not genuine  and are forged and fabricated,  

will be considered by the Civil Court.  It is also significant to  

note that prior to the filing of this complaint, respondent 2  

tried to lodge an FIR against the appellant by moving an  

application under Section 156(3) of the Code.  But the said  

application was dismissed on 6/5/2004. We notice from the  

impugned order that a separate case under Section 406 of  

the IPC was filed by respondent 2 against the appellant in  

which the appellant was acquitted on 9/2/2009.  It is further  

significant to note that statement was made on behalf of the  

appellant  before  the  High  Court  that  the  appellant  has  

vacated the shop in question and handed over possession to  

respondent 2.  In the peculiar facts of the case, therefore,  

we are  of  the  opinion  that  in  the  interest  of  justice,  the  

pending criminal proceedings need to be quashed.  We have  

taken  serious  note  of  the fact  that  respondent  2  did  not  

appear  before  the  High  Court  to  refute  the  case  of  the  

appellant.   He  has  also  not  chosen  to  appear  before  us

Page 7

though served. Probably because the possession of the shop  

is handed over to him, he is not interested in prosecuting  

the appellant and others.   

7. While  exercising its  jurisdiction  under  Section  482 of  

the Code the High Court has to be cautious.  This power is to  

be used sparingly and only for  the purpose of preventing  

abuse of the process of  any court or  otherwise to secure  

ends  of  justice.  Whether  a  complaint  discloses  a  criminal  

offence  or  not  depends  upon  the  nature  of  facts  alleged  

therein.  Whether  essential  ingredients  of  criminal  offence  

are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A  

complaint  disclosing  civil  transactions  may  also  have  a  

criminal texture.  But the High Court must see whether a  

dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak  

of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is  

available and is, in fact,  adopted as has happened in this  

case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal  

proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.

Page 8

8. As  we  have  already  noted,  here  the  dispute  is  

essentially  about  the  profit  of  the  hotel  business  and  its  

ownership.  The pending civil suit will take care of all those  

issues.  The allegation that forged and fabricated documents  

are used by the appellant can also be dealt with in the said  

suit.   Respondent  2’s  attempt  to  file  similar  complaint  

against the appellant having failed, he has filed the present  

complaint.  The appellant has been acquitted in another case  

filed  by  respondent  2  against  him alleging  offence  under  

Section 406 of the IPC.  Possession of the shop in question  

has also been handed over by the appellant to respondent 2.  

In  such  a  situation,  in  our  opinion,  continuation  of  the  

pending criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process  

of law.  The High Court was wrong in holding otherwise.   

9. In  the  circumstances,  the  impugned  order  dated  

29/9/2011  passed  by  the  Uttarakhand  High  Court  is  set  

aside.   The  entire  proceedings  of  Criminal  Case  No.  

723/2005  (charge-sheet  No.  32/2005),  and  the  order  of  

cognizance dated 22/3/2005 passed thereon by the Judicial  

Magistrate,  Khatima,  District  Udham Singh  Nagar  against

Page 9

the  appellant,  respondents  3  and  4  and  against  accused  

Rajpal for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420,  

467, 468, 471, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of the IPC are  

quashed and set aside.   This  order  will  however  have no  

effect  on  the  pending  civil  suit  between  the  parties.  

Needless to say that the court, seized of the said suit, shall  

decide it independently and in accordance with law.  

10. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.  

……………………………………………..J. (AFTAB ALAM)

……………………………………………..J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 14, 2012.