Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal complaint filed by the second respondent alleging that the appellant had duped him of Rs.10 lakhs on the promise of selling a flat and had also assaulted him. The complaint was filed in 2023 in respect of transactions that took place in 2019-2020. After an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao dismissed the complaint, holding that the dispute was civil in nature. A criminal revision was filed, and upon remand, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate again dismissed the complaint. This order was affirmed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge. The complainant then filed an application under Section 482 Cr.PC before the High Court. The High Court allowed the application without granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant (the accused), setting aside the orders dismissing the complaint. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in dispensing with notice to the appellant, as a remand setting aside the refusal of cognizance would necessarily prejudice the person against whom allegations were made. The Court further observed that the dispute was essentially civil, arising from a money transaction, and that criminal proceedings could not be used as a short-cut for recovery of money. It noted that the complaint was filed after the limitation for a civil suit had expired, indicating an abuse of process. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was unsustainable and restored the orders of the lower courts refusing cognizance. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Pre-cognizance Stage - Right to Hearing - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - The High Court dispensed with notice to the second respondent (appellant herein) while allowing a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, holding that the accused has no right to be heard at the pre-cognizance stage. The Supreme Court held that if a remand is made setting aside the order refusing cognizance, it necessarily prejudices the person against whom allegations are raised, and thus the accused ought to have been heard. (Paras 6-7) B) Criminal Law - Abuse of Process - Civil Dispute as Criminal Case - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - The complaint alleged cheating of Rs.10 lakhs and assault; investigations revealed a civil transaction. The Court reiterated that criminal proceedings are not a measure for recovery of money and civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal prosecution as an arm-twisting method. On facts, the dispute was civil in nature, and the High Court's order was set aside. (Paras 7-8) C) Limitation - Recovery of Money - Civil Suit Limitation Expired - Limitation Act, 1963 - The second installment was paid on 27.01.2020 and the first complaint to the police was on 13.03.2023, which was after the limitation period for filing a civil suit for recovery had expired. The Court noted that the belated criminal complaint appeared to be an attempt to overcome the limitation bar, which is impermissible. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and setting aside the orders refusing cognizance of a complaint which was essentially civil in nature.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and restored the orders of the lower courts refusing cognizance and dismissing the complaint. Pending applications were disposed of.
Law Points
- criminal proceedings are not a measure of recovery of money
- civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal prosecution as an arm-twisting method
- setting aside an order refusing cognizance prejudices the accused who must be heard
- High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot dispense with notice to the accused when remanding a case setting aside refusal of cognizance
