Date of the Judgment: February 19, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 117
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Can a criminal case be initiated years after an alleged offense, especially when it appears to be a tactic to recover money in an unethical transaction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving allegations of job fraud, highlighting the need for caution when dealing with private disputes that may mask ulterior motives. The court quashed the FIR, emphasizing that the police should not be used as a tool for settling private financial disputes. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Case Background
The case revolves around a dispute between Deepak Kumar Shrivas (the appellant) and Raj Kumari Maravi (respondent no. 6) concerning alleged payments made for securing jobs. The appellant initially complained that Raj Kumari Maravi had taken money from him under the pretext of providing a job for his brother. Later, Raj Kumari Maravi filed a counter-complaint against the appellant, alleging that he had taken money from her for a job for her daughter. Both parties accused each other of fraud, and the police found themselves caught in the middle of a complex web of accusations.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 6, 2021 | Deepak Kumar Shrivas (appellant) files a complaint with the Collector, Janjgir-Champa, alleging that Raj Kumari Maravi (respondent no. 6) took money for a job promise. |
| July 25, 2021 | Station House Officer submits an enquiry report to the Superintendent of Police, stating both parties accuse each other of taking money for jobs. |
| July 27, 2022 | Raj Kumari Maravi files an FIR against Deepak Kumar Shrivas, alleging he took money for a job promise. |
| July 11, 2023 | The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismisses the appellant’s writ petition to quash the FIR. |
| February 19, 2024 | Supreme Court allows the appeal and quashes the FIR. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially filed a complaint with the Collector, who then referred the matter to the Superintendent of Police. An inquiry was conducted, revealing counter-allegations between the parties. Subsequently, Raj Kumari Maravi filed an FIR against the appellant. The appellant then approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking to quash the FIR, which was dismissed. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the abuse of the legal process and the misuse of police resources in private disputes. There is no specific section of any statute mentioned in the judgment.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellant:
- The appellant argued that the FIR was a counterblast to his initial complaint and was filed maliciously to prevent him from recovering the money he had paid to respondent no. 6.
- He contended that the FIR was lodged after a significant delay of three years from the alleged transaction, which occurred in April 2019, making it unsustainable.
- The appellant also pointed out that a prior inquiry had been conducted based on his complaint, where similar allegations were made by both parties, and no action was taken then.
Arguments by the Respondents:
- The respondents argued that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense, and the High Court was correct in dismissing the petition to quash it.
- They submitted that the investigation should continue to ensure that the appellant is punished for the offense of cheating.
- They stated that the appellant had deceitfully induced respondent no. 6 to provide money by promising a job for her daughter, and neither provided the job nor returned the money.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellant | Sub-Submissions by Respondent |
|---|---|---|
| Mala fide intent and abuse of process | ✓ FIR is a counterblast to the appellant’s initial complaint. ✓ FIR was lodged maliciously to prevent recovery of money. |
✓ FIR discloses a cognizable offense. ✓ Investigation should continue to ensure punishment. |
| Delay in filing FIR | ✓ FIR was lodged after a delay of three years from the alleged transaction. | |
| Prior Inquiry | ✓ Similar allegations were made by both parties in the prior inquiry and no action was taken then. | |
| Nature of Transaction | ✓ Appellant deceitfully induced respondent to provide money by promising a job. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the FIR should be quashed given the delay, the nature of the transaction, and the apparent mala fide intent behind filing the FIR.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the FIR should be quashed given the delay, the nature of the transaction, and the apparent mala fide intent behind filing the FIR. | The FIR was quashed. | The Court found that the FIR was filed after an unexplained delay of three years, and the transaction appeared to be an unlawful contract. The court also noted that the FIR seemed to be a tactic to recover money rather than a genuine effort to pursue criminal prosecution. |
Authorities
No cases or books were explicitly cited by the court in this judgment.
| Authority | How it was considered by the Court |
|---|---|
| None | Not Applicable |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that FIR was a counterblast and malicious. | The Court agreed that the FIR appeared to be a counterblast and was filed with mala fide intentions. |
| Appellant’s submission that there was a delay of three years in lodging the FIR. | The Court accepted that the delay of three years was unexplained and significant. |
| Respondents submission that a cognizable offense was disclosed in the FIR. | The Court did not accept this argument, stating that the FIR was a tactic to recover money rather than a genuine criminal prosecution. |
| Respondents submission that the investigation should continue to ensure punishment. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the investigation would be an abuse of the process of law. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
No authorities were cited in the judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:
- Unexplained Delay: The three-year delay in filing the FIR was a significant factor, raising doubts about the genuineness of the complaint.
- Nature of Transaction: The court recognized that the transaction was an unlawful contract involving payment for securing a job, which is not legally enforceable.
- Mala Fide Intent: The court concluded that the FIR was primarily a tactic to recover money through coercion and pressure, rather than a genuine attempt to initiate criminal proceedings.
- Abuse of Process: The court emphasized that the police should not be used to settle private disputes, especially when they involve unethical transactions.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Unexplained Delay | 30% |
| Nature of Transaction | 25% |
| Mala Fide Intent | 30% |
| Abuse of Process | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The court’s reasoning was based on the following observations:
- The court noted that the respondent was aware of the complaint made by the appellant and still waited for a year to lodge the FIR.
- The court observed that the FIR was filed after a delay of three years without any explanation.
- The court concluded that the entire transaction was an unlawful contract for securing a job.
- The court found that the FIR was lodged to recover money under coercion and pressure.
The court stated:
“A reading of the entire material on record clearly reflects that it was totally an unlawful contract between the parties where money was being paid for securing a job in the government department(s) or private sector.”
“Therefore, the respondent no.6 found out a better medium to recover the said amount by building pressure on the appellant and his brother by lodging the FIR.”
“For all the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that such criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where the object to lodge the FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for punishing the offender for the offence committed but for recovery of money under coercion and pressure…”
There were no dissenting opinions in the judgment. The bench unanimously agreed to quash the FIR.
Key Takeaways
- Police should be cautious when dealing with disputes involving unethical transactions between private parties.
- FIRs filed after significant delays, especially when they appear to be a tactic for recovering money, can be quashed.
- The legal process should not be used as a tool for settling private financial disputes.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR 248 of 2022 be quashed.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue when the FIR is filed with the primary objective of recovering money through coercion and pressure, especially in cases involving unethical transactions and significant delays. This judgment reinforces the principle that the police should not be used as a tool for settling private disputes and that the legal process should not be abused for ulterior motives.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the FIR in this case underscores the importance of using the criminal justice system for its intended purpose: to punish offenders and protect society, not to settle private financial disputes. The court’s emphasis on the need for caution and vigilance by law enforcement agencies serves as a crucial reminder that the police should not be drawn into disputes where the primary motive is to recover money rather than to pursue justice.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Abuse of Process
Child Category: Delay in FIR
Parent Category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Child Category: Section 173(2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Deepak Kumar Shrivas vs. State of Chhattisgarh case?
A: The main issue was whether the FIR filed against Deepak Kumar Shrivas should be quashed, considering the significant delay, the nature of the transaction, and the apparent mala fide intent behind the filing of the FIR.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court quash the FIR?
A: The Supreme Court quashed the FIR because it found that it was filed after an unexplained delay of three years, the transaction was an unlawful contract, and the FIR was primarily a tactic to recover money rather than a genuine effort to pursue criminal prosecution.
Q: What is the significance of the delay in filing the FIR?
A: The delay of three years was a significant factor in the court’s decision. It raised doubts about the genuineness of the complaint and suggested that the FIR was filed with ulterior motives.
Q: What does the judgment say about the role of the police in private disputes?
A: The judgment emphasizes that the police should not be used as a tool for settling private financial disputes, especially when they involve unethical transactions. The police should exercise caution and vigilance in such cases.
Q: What should individuals do if they find themselves in a similar situation?
A: Individuals should avoid entering into unlawful contracts and should seek civil remedies for financial disputes. They should also be aware that using the criminal justice system for recovering money can be considered an abuse of process.