Civil & Criminal Cases Without Criminality

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that continuing both civil and criminal cases without criminality amounts to abuse of process and warrants quashing of criminal proceedings. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2025) Case ? 

• S.N. Vijayalakshmi, V.S. Sridevi, V.S. Srilekha, and K.V. Krishnaprasad were joint owners of 6 acres agricultural land in Bhoopasandra Village, Bangalore North Taluk, with complex ownership history dating back to the 1970s. 
• BDA initiated acquisition proceedings in 1978-1982 and allotted portions to beneficiaries. The Government de-notified the acquisition in 1992, but allottees successfully challenged this in High Court in 1996, with the order attaining finality when Supreme Court dismissed appeals in November 2015. 
• On November 30, 2015, landowners executed Agreement to Sell with complainant Keerthiraj Shetty (nominee of Ravishankara Shetty) for Rs. 3,50,00,000, along with General Power of Attorney authorising complainant to clear title and sell property. Advance of Rs. 2,00,000 was paid. 
• Complainant filed successful writ petitions in 2015-2016 declaring land acquisition as lapsed. Meanwhile, landowners entered MoU with M/s Legacy Global Realty in December 2016, receiving Rs. 2,00,00,000, with Rs. 1,00,00,000 transferred to K.V. Krishnaprasad for family members. 
• When property became marketable in April 2020, landowners refused to honour the Agreement to Sell. In June-July 2022, they revoked complainant's power of attorney, executed Release Deed in favour of S.N. Vijayalakshmi, who then conveyed entire property to K.V. Krishnaprasad through Gift Deed. 
• Complainant filed Private Complaint Report in July 2022 alleging offences under Sections 405, 406, 415, 417, 418, 420, 504, 506, 384 and 120B read with 34 IPC, while simultaneously filing civil suit for specific performance and declaration that subsequent deeds were not binding. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings on the same issue without criminality constitutes abuse of process, requiring quashing of criminal proceedings where civil remedies are available and criminal elements are absent. 
• The Court found essential ingredients for Sections 406 and 420 of IPC conspicuously absent - accused were rightful property owners (not entrusted parties) for breach of trust, and no deception existed for cheating as possession was never transferred and remained conditional on sale deed execution. 
• The Court noted that Sections 406 and 420 cannot be simultaneously invoked for one transaction due to mutually exclusive ingredients, and complainant's admission that cheating began only "after property value increase" destroyed claims of initial criminal intent. 
• While Priyanka Srivastava guidelines are mandatory, non-filing of supporting affidavit is curable if remedied before substantive orders. The Court expressed concern over compromise of public interest in Bengaluru due to statutory bodies' acts of omission and commission, warranting judicial intervention for complete justice.

What is the Legal Principle Established?

• Legal Principle on Simultaneous Proceedings: The Supreme Court established that in the absence of criminality, both civil and criminal cases cannot be allowed to continue simultaneously on the same issue, as it constitutes abuse of court process. Courts must prevent such abuse by quashing criminal proceedings where civil remedies are available and essential criminal elements are absent. 
• Test for Criminal Colour in Civil Disputes: Courts must examine whether disputes essentially of civil nature are being given a cloak of criminal offence. Where a civil remedy has been adopted and essential ingredients of criminal offences under Sections 316 (criminal breach of trust) and 318 (cheating) are not present, criminal proceedings should be quashed to prevent abuse of process. 
• Essential Ingredients for Section 316 of BNS (Criminal Breach of Trust): For Section 316 to apply, the accused must have been entrusted with property or dominion over property and dishonestly misappropriated or converted it. Where accused are rightful owners with title to the property, the foundation for invoking Section 316 falls to the ground, as owners cannot breach trust over their own property. 
• Essential Ingredients for Section 318 of BNS (Cheating): Section 318 requires proof that accused, by deceiving, fraudulently or dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver property or consent to retention of property. Mere failure to honour contractual obligations without initial criminal intent does not constitute cheating under this section. 
• Criminal Intent Must Exist from Inception: Criminal liability for cheating requires dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, not subsequent failure to perform. Post-facto breach of contract does not retrospectively create criminal liability under Section 318, and complainant's own admissions of criminal conduct beginning only after property value increased becomes fatal to cheating allegations. 
• Mutual Exclusivity Principle: The same person cannot be simultaneously charged under Sections 316 and 318 for a single transaction, as their ingredients are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist. This principle prevents overlapping criminal charges for the same conduct. 
• Burden of Proof for Prima Facie Criminal Case: At the FIR stage, complaints must prima facie disclose overwhelming element of criminality. Courts should examine whether essential ingredients of alleged offences are present based on factual allegations, and where civil disputes are maliciously given criminal colour, such proceedings warrant quashing. 
• Judicial Intervention for Complete Justice: Courts retain inherent power to prevent abuse of process where criminal proceedings lack merit while civil remedies adequately address the dispute. This ensures that genuine civil contractual disputes are not weaponised through criminal law to harass parties or gain unfair advantage in civil litigation.

Cases Referred 

• Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015): This case mandated following a specific procedure before invoking provisions of Section 200 CrPC, requiring complainants to approach the Superintendent of Police before filing private complaints with magistrates. 
• Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024): Established that an FIR cannot be maintained under both Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC simultaneously as the ingredients of both sections are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist for the same transaction. 
• Paramjeet Batra v State of Uttarakhand (2013): Emphasized that courts must examine whether disputes essentially of civil nature are being given a cloak of criminal offence and should not hesitate to quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of court process.