Quashing of FIR when dispute is of civil nature

QUASHING OF FIR BECAUSE DISPUTE IS OF CIVIL NATURE:
In Trilok Singh & Ors. Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the similar case wherein the truck had been taken in possession by the Financer in terms of hire purchase agreement, as there was a default in making the payment of installments. A criminal case had been lodged against the Financer under Sections 395, 468, 465, 471, 12-B/34, I.P.C. This Court refused to exercise its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and did not quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that the Financer had committed an offence. However, reversing the said judgment, the Apex Court held that proceedings initiated were clearly an abuse of process of the Court. The dispute involved was purely of civil nature, even if the allegations made by the complainant were substantially correct. Under the hire purchase agreement, the Financer had made the payment of huge money and he was in fact the owner of the vehicle. The terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement gave rise in case of dispute only to civil rights and in such a case, the Civil Court must decide as what was the meaning of those terms and conditions.
In K.A. Mathai alias Babu & Anr. Vs. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr., 1996 (7) SCC 212, the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken a similar view holding that in case of default to make payment of installments, Financer had a right to resume possession even if the hire purchase agreement does not contain a clause of resumption of possession, for the reason that such a condition is to be read in the agreement. In such an eventuality, it cannot be held that the Financer had committed an offence of theft and that too, with the requisite mens rea and requisite dishonest intention. The assertions of rights and obligations accruing to the parties under the hire purchase agreement wipes out any dishonest pretence in that regard from which it cannot be inferred that Financer had resumed the possession of the vehicle with a guilty intention.
In Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan Vs. S.K. Saraf, (1999) 1 SCC 119, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a case wherein the company had provided an accommodation to its employee and after termination of his services, he did not vacate the said accommodation and a criminal case was lodged against him under Sections 406, 408, 409, I.P.C. also taking the assistance of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that as the accused had been granted a rent free accommodation as a part of the conditions of employment, the agreement provided for civil rights and thus, complaint was not maintainable.
In Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. Vs. Sudhir Mehra, (2001) 7 SCC 417, again the Hon'ble Apex Court held that recovery of possession of the vehicle by Financer-owner as per terms of the hire purchase agreement, does not amount to a criminal offence. Such an agreement is an executory contract of sale conferring no right in rem on the hirer until the transfer of the property to him has been fulfilled and in case the default is committed by the hirer and possession of the vehicle is resumed by the Financer, it does not constitute any offence for the reason that such a case/dispute is required to be resolved on the basis of terms incorporated in the agreement. The Apex Court elaborately dealt with the nature of the hire purchase agreement observing that in a case of mere contract of hiring, it is a contract of bailment which does not create a title in the bailee.
In Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that peculiar facts of a case may give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable, it does not mean that the criminal complaint cannot be maintained, therefore, held that no law of universal application can be laid down in such matters. The facts and circumstances of each case have to be examined, appreciating the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement.
In M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & Anr.,(2001) 8 SCC 645, after considering several authorities on the point it was pointed out that mere filing of a civil suit with respect to the documents gives no ground for quashing criminal proceedings, as the allegations in the complaint need to be independently established. The Court held as under:-
"Accepting such a general proposition would be against the provisions of law inasmuch as in all cases of cheating and fraud, in the whole transaction, there is generally some element of civil nature. However, in this case the allegations were regarding the forging of the documents and acquiring gains on the basis of such forged documents. 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. Had the complainant failed to prove the allegations made by him the complaint, the respondents were entitled to discharge or acquittal but not otherwise. If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, the 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 the criminal action, have to be adjudicated and concluded by adopting separate yardsticks. The onus of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, in a criminal case, is not applicable in the civil proceedings which can be decided merely on the basis of the probabilities with respect to the acts complained of......Where factual foundations for the offence have been laid down in the complaint, the High Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with the details or that the facts narrated reveal the existence of commercial or money transaction between the parties."
Similarly, in Rajesh Bajaj (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions. The crux of the postulate is the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in discovering whether there was commission of offence or not."
Similar view has been reiterated in Ram Biraji Devi (supra) observing that where a person cannot be fastened with any criminal liability and no guilty intention can be attributed to him nor there is a possibility of deceiving on his part and the matter relates to only civil liabilities, the Court should interfere and quash the proceedings.
Thus, in view of the above, it becomes clear that in a given case, there may be civil as well as criminal liability and the Court has to examine the facts and circumstances of each case. Nature of the agreement reached between the parties and terms and conditions incorporated therein would be determining factor. However, such a course is permissible where the matter is of such a nature that it can be decided only by a Civil Court and no element of criminal law is involved.