M. KRISHNAN versus VIJAY SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 45 · Decided: 11-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

M. KRISHNAN 
V. 
VIJAY SINGH AND ANR. 
OCTOBER II, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Criminal 
Proceedings-Quashing of-When civil disputes pending between the parties-:-
Held justified. 
Respondents withdrew huge amounts from bank on the basis of 
forged documents showing the appellant as guarantor. Appellant filed a 
complaint against respondents alleging commission of various offences 
under the Indian Penal Code. Magistrate took cognizam:e and issued 
process against the respondents. Instead of appearing before the Magistrate, 
respondents approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for 
quashing the proceedings initiated against them. High Court quashed the 
proceedings on the ground that in view of the pendency of civil disputes 
between the parties where the genuineness of the documents relied upon 
by the complainant was in dispute, no criminal action could be initiated 
against the respondents. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. High Court was not justified in quashing the crimfnal 
proceedings against the respondents. The High Court appears to have been 
impressed by the fact that as the nature of the dispute was primarily of a civil 
nature, the appellant was not justified in resorting to criminal proceedings. 
This would be against the provisions oflaw inasmuch as in all cases of cheating 
and fraud, in the whole transaction, there is generally some element of civi~ 
nature even though the allegations relate to forging of documents and 
acquiring gains on the basis of such forged documents. Further the 
proceedings could not be quashed only because the respondents had filed a 
civil suit with respect to the aforesaid documents. In a criminal court the 
allegations made in the complaint have to be established independently 
notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil court. [48-A; B; CJ 
45 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
2. If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing criminal 
B 
c 
proceedings, unscrupulous litigants, apprehending criminal action against 
them, would be encouraged tO frustrate the course of justice and law by 
filing suits with respect to the documents intended to be used against them 
after the initiation of criminal proceedings or ·in anticipation of such 
proceedings. Such a course cannot be the mandate of law. Civil proceedings, 
as distinguished from criminal action, have to be adjudicated and concluded 
by adopting separate yardsticks. The onus of proving the allegations 
beyond reasonable doubt, in criminal case, is not applicable in the civil 
proceedjngs which can be decided merely on the basis of the probabilities 
with respect to the acts compiained of. [48-D-F] 
3. Where factual foundations for the offence have been laid down in 
the complaint, High Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings 
mereJy·on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with 
the d~tails or that the facts narrated reveal the existence of commercial or 
. 
' 
. 
. 
D 
money transaction between the parties. [48-G; H; 49-A] 
· 4.-It cannot be said that the complaint filed by the appellant did not 
disclose the commission of an offence or there existed any other circumstance 
which can be made the basis for quashing the proceedings. In fact the 
allegations made in the complaint required adjudication and the complaint 
E 
could not have be2n aborted in the manner it has been done by the High 
Court. (50-C] 
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR (1960) SC 866, relied on . 
Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., JT (1999) 2 SC 112 and 
F 
Shanti/al .v. Vimalchand & Ors., JT (2000) 8 SC 109, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE ruRISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1028 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.1.2001 of the Karnataka High 
G 
Court in Crl. P. No. 3266 of 1998. 
S.N. Bhat for the Appellant. 
K.S. Nagaraja Rao and K.K. Mani for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.;!!. 
M. KRISHNAN v. VUAY SINGH [SETHI, J.] 
SETID, J. Leave granted. 
47 
The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent alleging commission 
of offences punishable under Sections 193, 196, 197,406, 465, 468 and 471 
of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate took the cognizance and issued 
process against the two out of the three accused, named in the complaint. 
Instead of appeari_ng before the Trial mag
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.