The charges arose from allegations of misconduct during the transfer of a property sale deed. The petitioner had challenged an Allahabad High Court decision that refused to quash the charges under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), asserting that it was premature to conclude that no offence had been committed.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, on December 16, raised serious concerns over misuse of criminal law to address civil disputes in various states.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a petition seeking to quash criminal charges filed under Sections 420, 406, 354, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The charges arose from allegations of misconduct during the transfer of a property sale deed. The petitioner had challenged an Allahabad High Court decision that refused to quash the charges under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), asserting that it was premature to conclude that no offence had been committed.
During the proceedings, the bench questioned the complainant’s counsel (respondent no. 2) about whether a civil suit had been filed regarding the matter. The counsel clarified that only a criminal complaint had been lodged, citing the petitioner’s relocation to a different residence.
CJI Khanna expressed concern over the increasing tendency to transform civil disputes into criminal cases, remarking:
“This is another instance of a civil dispute being wrongfully converted into a criminal case. This practice must be curbed. Please advise your client, as the case may also risk becoming barred by limitation. Such misuse is not isolated; it is rampant in some states, and it is a serious issue.”
The complainant had accused the petitioner of fraudulently inducing a transfer of Rs19 lakh with a false promise to execute a sale deed. However, the Court noted that earlier complaints in the matter had not resulted in an FIR, as no criminal offence was prima facie established.
The trial was stayed after it was observed that the complainant had defaulted on payment and breached the agreement.
Extending the interim stay, the bench allowed the complainant three weeks to submit a counter-affidavit.
The case will next be heard in March 2025.
Case Details: Rikhab Birani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh SLP (Crl) No. 008592/2024
