In a recent landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court addressed the complex interplay between civil and criminal proceedings, emphasizing that the pursuit of a civil remedy does not preclude the initiation of criminal action when the alleged acts constitute specific criminal offenses. The court underscored that denying access to criminal courts solely because a civil suit has been filed would amount to a travesty of justice.
Factual Background
The case involved petitioners accused of offenses under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 120B (criminal conspiracy), read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioners had extended a loan of ₹12,50,000 to the de facto complainant, securing it by taking her residential property as collateral through a document styled as a sale deed, with an agreement to reconvey upon repayment within fifteen years at a reasonable interest rate. Unbeknownst to the complainant, the petitioners subsequently took a loan of ₹25,00,000 from a bank using her property as security. This led to the initiation of proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act by the bank, resulting in the complainant being served with a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act.
Legal Proceedings
In response to the bank's actions, the de facto complainant filed a civil suit seeking to set aside the sale deed and to restrain the bank from proceeding against her property. Simultaneously, she lodged a criminal complaint alleging that the petitioners had committed cheating and breach of trust. The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that the initiation of criminal action was unwarranted.
Court's Analysis
Justice G. Girish, presiding over the matter, observed that while care must be taken to prevent unwarranted criminal prosecutions in disputes that are purely civil, the existence of a civil dispute does not automatically exclude the possibility of criminal offenses arising from the same set of facts. The court noted that certain objectionable acts alleged in civil disputes could also constitute specific criminal offenses such as cheating or criminal breach of trust. The court emphasized that it would be unjust to bar access to criminal courts solely because a civil remedy has been pursued.
The court further elaborated that the mere presence of a civil dispute does not grant immunity against criminal prosecution if the actions in question also fulfill the criteria for criminal offenses. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits to determine whether the alleged acts constitute a criminal offense, irrespective of any ongoing civil proceedings.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the principle that civil and criminal remedies can coexist, and the pursuit of one does not inherently bar the other. It clarifies that individuals alleging criminal offenses are entitled to seek redress in criminal courts, even if they have initiated civil proceedings related to the same matter. This serves as a deterrent against wrongful acts that may give rise to both civil liabilities and criminal culpability, ensuring that perpetrators cannot evade criminal prosecution by hiding behind the existence of civil disputes.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court's decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that justice is not compromised by procedural technicalities. By affirming that the pursuit of civil remedies does not preclude criminal action when the alleged acts constitute criminal offenses, the court has upheld the principle that justice must be accessible and comprehensive, addressing all facets of wrongful conduct.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.