| HC rejects criminal colour to civil dispute, quashes FIR | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sept 11: Observing that a purely commercial dispute had been given criminal colour, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an FIR arising out of a Rs 15-lakh property transaction, holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Justice Sanjay Dhar allowed the petition filed by Romesh Kumar and others challenging FIR No. 0120/2024, registered at Police Station Bakshi Nagar, Jammu, under Sections 318(4) and 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Court emphasised that an offence of cheating requires fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of a transaction. A subsequent failure to honour a promise does not establish cheating when such intention was absent at the outset.
According to the complaint, Romesh Kumar and his wife, Rekha Devi, allegedly induced the complainant to pay ?15 lakh for purchasing a building with a shop at Exchange Road, Jammu. They promised him Rs 20,000 per month from the rental income and stated that a tower would be installed on the building.
The complainant alleged that the petitioners stopped making payments after November 2016 and failed to fulfil their promise recorded in a written affidavit. He also alleged that they had threatened his son. Senior Advocate Rakesh Chargotra, assisted by Advocate Abhishek Verma, appeared for the petitioners. Deputy Advocate General P.D. Singh represented the investigating agency, while Advocate Rajat Jamwal appeared for the complainant. Examining the allegations, Justice Dhar noted that the complainant himself had admitted that the petitioners paid the agreed Rs 20,000 per month until November 2016. The Court held that their compliance with the arrangement demonstrated the absence of dishonest intention when the transaction was entered into. "It is only after November, 2016 that they failed to keep their promise," the Court observed, concluding that no offence of cheating was made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court found that the FIR appeared to have been lodged "only to give criminal texture to a purely commercial dispute" between the parties. It reiterated that the Supreme Court and the High Court had repeatedly deprecated the tendency of litigants to convert purely civil disputes into criminal prosecution. The investigating agency informed the Court that witness statements had been recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, but further investigation could not proceed following the High Court's interim stay dated September 20, 2024. Counsel for the complainant submitted that his client had no objection to the FIR being quashed.
Holding that continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law, the High Court, through its order dated September 9, 2026, quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it.
(JNF) |
|
