The Supreme Court of India ruled that violating an injunction order attracts legal consequences even if the order is later vacated, reinforcing that court directives must be respected during their subsistence to uphold judicial authority.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that violation of an injunction order can invite legal consequences even if the order is later vacated or set aside, reaffirming the principle established in Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998).
The ruling came while the Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing Criminal Appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench’s decision, which had allowed petitions filed by the accused.
Court’s Observation
The Apex Court emphasized that breach of an injunction during its subsistence cannot go unpunished merely because the injunction was later vacated. The Bench observed:
“Even if an injunction order is subsequently set aside, consequences for breach or violation of the same when it subsisted, could still befall upon the violator.”
The Court further held that if a party knowingly permits or ignores the violation of a subsisting order, they cannot escape responsibility by claiming lack of direct involvement.
Case Background
The Appellant-Complainant had filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) under Sections 120B, 201, 419, 471, 468, and 420 of the IPC, alleging that the accused had trespassed and carried out illegal renovations on disputed property, despite a status quo order by the High Court.
The dispute arose over a property allegedly gifted orally by the complainant’s father. The father, however, had executed a Sale Deed in 2009 in favor of the accused, which the complainant claimed was illegal.
While the High Court had ordered status quo regarding title and possession, the accused allegedly broke open locks and carried out construction on the property in 2015, a clear violation of the subsisting order.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court held that the JMFC had rightly referred the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, since a prima facie case of cognizable offences was established.
Citing Madhao v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the Court clarified that a Magistrate is not bound to take cognizance of a complaint if the allegations disclose a cognizable offence; instead, they may direct a police investigation in the interest of justice.
The Bench noted inconsistencies in the accused’s own submissions:
“The Rent/Lease Agreement clearly prohibited the tenant from altering or repairing the premises without the landlord’s written consent. Accused No.1 has not claimed that such permission was ever granted.”
Court’s Decision
Setting aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court:
- Restored the FIR and upheld the JMFC’s order for police investigation.
- Directed the police to conduct an expeditious investigation in accordance with the law.
- Clarified that parties are free to present their defences and evidence during the investigation or before the trial court.
The Bench emphasized that its observations are confined to the current issue and shall not influence pending proceedings between the parties.
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Shailesh Madiyal, AORs Rohit Kumar Singh, Shweta Priyadarshini, Advocates Divija Mahajan, Nishi Singh, Shikhar Gupta, and Shubham V. Gawande
Respondents: AAG Prateek Chadha, AORs D. L. Chidananda, M. A. Chinnasamy, Advocates N. D. B. Raju, Barathi Raju, Vasundhara Raju, Raghavendren, and C Rubavathi.
Case Title:
Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.11336 OF 2022
READ JUDGMENT