Supreme Court Refuses Blanket Clarification on Civil Court Findings Impact on Criminal Proceedings: Mukesh Maganlal Doshi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2023

Citation: Miscellaneous Application No. 531 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020

Judges: Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Can a person who was not a party to a previous Supreme Court case seek a clarification of the judgment by intervening in the case? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, emphasizing that the applicability of a judgment depends on the specific facts of each case. This case involves an applicant seeking clarification of a previous order, arguing that it should apply to his situation to prevent multiple legal proceedings.

The Supreme Court, in this case, declined to provide a blanket clarification, stating that the concerned court where the applicant’s case is pending should determine whether the previous judgment applies to the specific facts of his case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

Case Background

The applicant, Mukesh Maganlal Doshi, was not a party to the original case, Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020, decided on 10.02.2020. However, he sought a clarification of the order passed in that case. The applicant’s request stemmed from the following circumstances:

• ✓ On 5th March 2019, a complaint was filed with Mumbai Police regarding the unauthorized sale of building units by business associates of the complainant. This included the sale of seven units to the applicant’s group.
• ✓ The complaint also alleged that the business associates had obtained fraudulent loans from banks.
• ✓ On 19th March 2020, the complainant approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with the same grievances. While the police registered an FIR on 23rd September 2020 against the business associates for fraudulent loans, the CBI did not register a complaint regarding the unauthorized sale of units.
• ✓ A Commercial Suit (L) 370 of 2020 was filed by the complainant concerning the unauthorized sale of the seven units to the applicant and his group.
• ✓ The suit was resolved through a compromise, which was decreed by the High Court on 16th March 2021. The decree acknowledged that the applicant’s group was a victim of fraud, and the disputed property/value was returned to the complainant.
• ✓ Subsequently, the Mumbai Police filed a closure report under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stating that no further investigation was required against the applicant and his group.
• ✓ However, in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against the business associates of the complainant, the applicant’s group was included.

The applicant sought clarification of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020, which had held that findings in a civil court can make the substratum of a criminal complaint vanish, thus requiring the quashing of criminal proceedings. The applicant contended that if this principle was not applied to his case, it would lead to multiple proceedings and injustice.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The applicant was not a party to the original case, Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020. The applicant sought to intervene in the present matter to seek clarification of the order dated 10.02.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020. The applicant argued that the principle laid down in the earlier judgment should apply to his case to prevent multiple proceedings. The applicant’s group was wrongly included in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against the business associates of the complainant. The applicant also stated that the Mumbai Police had filed a closure report under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, stating that no further investigation was required against the applicant and his group.

Legal Framework

The applicant sought clarification based on the principle laid down in the judgment dated 10.02.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020, which held that:

“…findings recorded in the civil proceedings make substratum of a criminal complaint vanish and thus, any pending criminal proceedings against such persons are liable to be quashed and allowing prosecution in such a situation would amount to complete abuse of proceedings of law.”

The Supreme Court also referred to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which states that:

“The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”

The applicant also mentioned Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with reports made by police officers to magistrates.

Arguments

Applicant’s Arguments:

• ✓ The applicant argued that the principle laid down in the judgment dated 10.02.2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020 should be applied to his case.
• ✓ He contended that the findings of the civil court, which acknowledged his group as victims of fraud, should nullify the criminal proceedings against him.
• ✓ The applicant stated that if the clarification was not granted, it would result in multiplicity of proceedings and injustice.
• ✓ The applicant sought intervention to clarify that the judgment of 10.02.2020 applies to his case.

Supreme Court’s Response:

• ✓ The Supreme Court acknowledged that the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020 held that civil court findings could make the substratum of a criminal complaint vanish.
• ✓ The Court emphasized that while the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the applicability of the law depends on the specific facts of each case.
• ✓ The Court stated that the concerned court where the applicant’s proceedings are pending must test the applicability of the law declared by the Supreme Court based on the facts of the particular case.
• ✓ The Court rejected the applicant’s request for a blanket declaration and clarification, stating that it is not appropriate to seek such clarification by way of intervention in proceedings to which he was not a party.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this miscellaneous application. However, the core issue was whether the applicant, who was not a party to the original proceedings, could seek clarification of the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020 by way of intervention.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

• ✓ The judgment dated 10.02.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020, Supreme Court of India – The court referred to its own judgment which held that findings recorded in the civil proceedings make substratum of a criminal complaint vanish.
• ✓ Article 141 of the Constitution of India – The court referred to the provision that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ The judgment dated 10.02.2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020: The Court acknowledged the principle in the judgment that findings in civil proceedings can make the substratum of a criminal complaint vanish. However, the Court clarified that the applicability of this principle depends on the facts of each case.
• ✓ Article 141 of the Constitution of India: The Court reaffirmed that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts but emphasized that the application of the law needs to be tested based on the facts of each case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the application of a legal principle depends on the specific facts of each case. The Court emphasized that a blanket clarification cannot be given through intervention in a case where the applicant was not a party to the original proceedings. The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• ✓ The need for case-specific evaluation: The Court stressed that the applicability of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2020 must be tested based on the facts of each particular case.
• ✓ Rejection of blanket declarations: The Court refused to provide a blanket clarification, stating that it is not appropriate to seek such clarification through intervention in proceedings to which the applicant was not a party.
• ✓ Respect for the judicial process: The Court noted that the concerned court where the applicant’s proceedings are pending should determine whether the previous judgment applies to his case.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%). The emphasis was on the proper application of legal principles and the judicial process.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court will not provide blanket clarifications of its judgments through intervention in cases where the applicant was not a party to the original proceedings.
• ✓ The applicability of a Supreme Court judgment depends on the specific facts of each case, and the concerned court must test the applicability of the law based on the facts of the particular case.
• ✓ Parties seeking the benefit of a Supreme Court judgment must approach the concerned court where their proceedings are pending, rather than seeking clarification through intervention in unrelated cases.
• ✓ This judgment reinforces the principle that each case must be decided on its own merits and that the application of legal principles is fact-dependent.

Directions

The Court did not give any specific directions in this case. It merely dismissed the application for intervention and clarification.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a party cannot seek a blanket clarification of a Supreme Court judgment by intervening in a case where they were not a party to the original proceedings. The applicability of a judgment depends on the specific facts of each case, and the concerned court where the applicant’s proceedings are pending must determine whether the previous judgment applies to those specific facts. This decision reinforces the principle that each case must be decided on its own merits and that the application of legal principles is fact-dependent. There is no change in the previous position of law, but rather a reaffirmation of established principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by Mukesh Maganlal Doshi seeking clarification of an earlier order. The Court held that the applicability of a judgment depends on the specific facts of each case and that a blanket clarification cannot be sought through intervention in proceedings to which the applicant was not a party. The decision emphasizes the importance of case-specific evaluation and reinforces the principle that each case must be decided on its own merits.