Supreme Court Condemns Vindictive Use of Criminal Law in Personal Disputes: A Landmark Ruling

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan emphasized significant legal principles in their recent pronouncement.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a stern warning against the misuse of criminal law as a tool for settling personal vendettas. The court expressed concern over the disturbing trend where the judicial system is being exploited by individuals pursuing their vested interests.

This observation came from a bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan while dismissing criminal proceedings against a Guwahati businessman. The case had involved charges under IPC section 420 (cheating) and section 406 (criminal breach of trust).

The bench noted with concern that in recent years, the criminal justice machinery has been manipulated by certain individuals to achieve their oblique motives. "Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud," the justices stated.

Upon examining the complaint and evidence, the court determined that the essential elements for offenses of cheating and criminal breach of trust were not established against businessman Inder Chand Bagri. The bench suggested that complainant Jagadish Prasad Bagri could pursue other remedies under civil law to challenge the disputed property's sale deed and claim damages for contractual rights violations.

"Criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas," the bench emphasized, adding that Inder Chand Bagri could not be attributed any mens rea (criminal intent), rendering the prosecution's allegations unsustainable.

The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention must exist at the time of making false representations, while for criminal breach of trust, simply proving entrustment is sufficient.

"Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in the case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver property. In such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously," the court explained.

The court further elaborated that a complaint cannot contain both offenses that are independent and distinct, as they cannot coexist in the same factual scenario, being antithetical to each other.

"In view of the above and for the reasons stated, we are of the firm opinion that to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused (Inder Chand Bagri) herein would cause undue harassment to him because, as observed hereinabove, no prima facie case for the offence under Sections 406 or 420 of the IPC is made out," the Supreme Court concluded.

Referencing the 1992 verdict in Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, the bench determined that allegations of criminal intent against Inder Chand Bagri were made with mala fide intent, making it neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to allow the prosecution to continue.

The court observed that while the complainant made serious allegations against the appellant, he failed to substantiate them before the court.

"Such actions would create significant divisions and distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly criminal courts," the bench noted while overturning the Gauhati High Court's refusal to quash criminal proceedings against the businessman.

The case originated from a 1976 business arrangement where Inder Chand Bagri, the owner of the disputed land, formed a partnership with four others - Bhagwandas Bagri, Ramkishan Bagri, Shyamsundar Bagri, and Jagdish Prasad Bagri (the complainant) to construct warehouses and godowns for leasing to third parties.

The partnership built two godowns on the property and leased them to the Food Corporation of India for fifteen years until 1993.

The dispute emerged regarding the property's use after FCI vacated it, which according to the supplementary deed, should have reverted to the original owner, Inder Chand Bagri.

Jagdish Prasad Bagri filed a complaint alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating after Inder Chand Bagri sold the disputed property to his nephew in 2011.