Supreme Court Warns Against Vindictive Use Of Criminal Law To Settle Scores

Criminal law cannot become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas, the Supreme Court on Monday said as it deprecated the recent trend where the judicial system is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the observations while quashing a criminal case for offences under IPC section 420 (cheating) and section 406 (criminal breach of trust) against a Guwahati-based businessman.

Observing that in recent years the machinery of criminal justice has been misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda, the bench said, "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 top court, while perusing the complaint and the evidence, said that the ingredients for offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust are not made out against businessman Inder Chand Bagri, and complainant Jagadish Prasad Bagri has other remedies under civil law to set aside the sale deed of the disputed property and claim damages for violation of his contractual rights.

"Criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas," the bench said, adding that Inder Chand Bagri could not be attributed any mens rea and therefore, the allegations levelled by the prosecution against him are unsustainable.

Observing that there is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating, the bench said that for cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation, that is, since inception, and in criminal breach of trust, mere proof of 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 top court said.

It further added that the complaint cannot contain both the offences that are independent and distinct, and the said offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts, as they are 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 top court said.

Referring to a 1992 verdict in the case of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, the bench said the court finds that the allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against Inder Chand Bagri have been made with a mala fide intent, and it is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue.

The top court said that while the complainant has made grave allegations against the appellant, he has failed to justify the same before this court.

"Such actions would create significant divisions and distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly criminal courts," it said, while setting aside an order of the Gauhati High Court refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against the businessman.

According to the dispute, in 1976, Inder Chand Bagri, who was the owner of the disputed land, decided to form a partnership firm with four other individuals - Bhagwandas Bagri, Ramkishan Bagri, Shyamsundar Bagri and Jagdish Prasad Bagri (complainant) to carry on the business of construction of warehouses and godowns and subsequently letting them out to third parties.

The firm constructed two godowns on the disputed property and leased them out to the Food Corporation of India for a period of fifteen years till 1993.

The dispute arose over the use of the disputed property after FCI vacated the land, which, according to the supplementary deed, would have returned to the original owner, Inder Chand Bagri.

A complaint was filed by Jagdish Prasad Bagri for the sale of the disputed land property by Inder Chand Bagri to his nephew in 2011, alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)