Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Property Dispute: Dr. Sonia Verma vs. State of Haryana (2024)

Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 227
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Can a criminal case be used to settle a property dispute? The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue, emphasizing that civil disputes should not be disguised as criminal offenses. In this case, the Court quashed criminal proceedings, finding that the core issue was a civil matter regarding property ownership. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute concerning the Surendra Maternity and Trauma Hospital in Haryana. The appellants, Dr. Sonia Verma and another doctor, were running the hospital and paying rent to the son of Respondent No. 2, the original owner’s wife, until August 2022. The appellants then claimed to have purchased the land via a registered sale deed dated 23.08.2022 from one Sher Singh. Following this purchase, they stopped paying rent. Respondent No. 2 claimed that the property was transferred to her by her husband in 2017 and she never sold it. She alleged that the appellants, in collusion with Sher Singh, forged the sale deed to usurp her property. This led to two FIRs being filed – one by the appellants against the family of Respondent No. 2 for fraudulent rent collection and threats, and another by Respondent No. 2 against the appellants for forgery and property usurpation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, aggrieved by the registration of the Subject FIR, approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The High Court dismissed the plea, stating that the allegations related to a different Killa number, which the appellants never claimed to have purchased. The High Court held that the ingredients of the alleged offenses were made out against the appellants. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court also considered Sections 506 (criminal intimidation), 420 (cheating), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court examined whether the criminal proceedings were justified, given that the core dispute was civil in nature.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The primary contention of the Appellants was that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, concerning the validity of the sale deed and ownership of the property.
• They argued that since they had already filed a civil suit to establish their claim, the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the legal process.
• The Appellants highlighted the litigation history, pointing out the pending civil suit and the FIR they had filed against the Respondent No. 2’s family.

State of Haryana’s Arguments:

• The State of Haryana argued that there was sufficient prima facie evidence for the Trial Court to proceed against the Appellants.
• They contended that the existence of a civil dispute does not automatically justify quashing criminal proceedings.

Respondent No. 2:

• Respondent No. 2 did not contest the matter before the Supreme Court despite being served a notice.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list but the core issue before the Court was:

• Whether the criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 against the Appellants were an abuse of the process of law, given that the dispute was primarily civil in nature.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions and authorities and came to the conclusion that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, relating to the validity of the sale deed and property ownership. The Court noted that the Appellants had already taken recourse to civil remedies by filing a civil suit. The timing of the criminal complaint by Respondent No. 2, subsequent to the filing of the civil suit and the FIR by the Appellants, also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. Additionally, the Court noted that Respondent No. 2 did not contest the matter before the Supreme Court, which further weakened her case. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the Appellants had been paying rent before their alleged purchase of the Suit Property.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The core of the dispute was whether the sale deed was valid, which is a civil matter.
• The Appellants had already pursued a civil remedy by filing a suit.
• The criminal complaint appeared to be an attempt to use criminal law to settle a civil dispute.

The Supreme Court quoted from Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., stating, “Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein… 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.”

The Court noted, “A closer examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances fortifies the conclusion that an attempt has been made by the Respondent No. 2 to shroud a civil dispute with a cloak of criminality.”

The Court further observed, “the dispute herein, which forms the genesis of the criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 is entirely civil in nature i.e., whether the Appellants are in lawful possession of the Suit Property or, in essence, whether the RSD is valid.”

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the criminal proceedings. The Court clarified that this order would not affect the pending civil suit, which would be decided on its own merits.

Key Takeaways

• Civil disputes should not be disguised as criminal offenses.
• Criminal proceedings can be quashed if the core issue is civil and a civil remedy has been pursued.
• High Courts should be cautious in exercising their inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and should prevent the abuse of the legal process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the civil suit between the parties should be decided in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the quashing of the criminal proceedings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that criminal proceedings should not be initiated or continued when the core of the dispute is civil in nature and civil remedies are available and have been pursued. This reaffirms the principle that criminal law should not be used as a tool to settle civil disputes, thus reinforcing the existing legal position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Sonia Verma vs. State of Haryana emphasizes that civil disputes should be resolved through civil remedies and not through criminal proceedings. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants, finding that the core issue was a civil dispute over property ownership. This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be used to settle civil disputes and highlights the importance of using the appropriate legal avenues for resolving conflicts.