Top Court pointed out that civil remedies do not preclude criminal prosecution if criminality is evident, while invoking Article 142 powers invoked for public interest

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that the mere existence of a civil remedy does not automatically warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings under the same set of facts. The Court held that if allegations disclose a prima facie element of criminality, civil and criminal proceedings may validly coexist.

The judgment was delivered in S V Vijayalakshmi & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Anr while considering whether a First Information Report (FIR) arising from a land dispute should be quashed, given the pendency of a civil dispute on the same issue.

The Court reiterated that “there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings,” provided that the criminal proceedings are not a mere abuse of process and that the allegations reveal a substantial criminal element. Citing Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013), the Court observed that a civil transaction may also assume a criminal character where fraud, deception, or criminal intent is present.

However, the bench emphasized that in the absence of criminality, allowing both sets of proceedings would amount to an abuse of court process. “If such an element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed,” it held.

In this particular case, the complainant had first approached the police on May 12, 2022, but an FIR was not registered. The complainant subsequently filed a private complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and, after procedural compliance, the matter was referred to the police, which eventually led to the registration of the FIR on July 21, 2023.

The appellants contended that the High Court erred in not applying the mandatory procedural safeguards laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015), particularly regarding the filing of a sworn affidavit before invoking Section 200 of the CrPC. The High Court had held that the omission was a curable defect, since the affidavit had been filed prior to the Magistrate’s referral order under Section 156(3) CrPC.

While the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning on the curable nature of the defect, it clarified the binding nature of the Priyanka Srivastava guidelines:

1. Filing of a supporting affidavit is mandatory.

2. The requirement is prospective in application.

3. The defect is curable, but must be remedied before any substantive order is passed.

4. Orders passed without compliance can be quashed for non-adherence to this mandate.

Ultimately, however, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings after concluding that the allegations, even if accepted in totality, failed to disclose ingredients necessary to constitute offences such as cheating, breach of trust, extortion, or conspiracy. The appeal was allowed on merits and extended to all co-accused on the ground of parity.

Exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court went a step further and took suo motu cognizance of suspected collusive litigation between the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) and the appellants regarding the land in question, measuring 3 acres and 33 guntas in Bengaluru North Taluk. The land was first acquired and later denotified, thereby depriving legitimate beneficiaries of its use.

Labeling the case as “blatant misuse of law and acts of omission/commission by statutory authorities,” the Court directed the Registry to register a writ petition under Article 32 for deeper judicial scrutiny. The matter is to be tagged with a pending Special Leave Petition filed by the BDA.

The Court observed, “We cannot and would not turn a blind eye to such collusive arrangements that defeat the public interest.”