The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in a
judgment titled “Ramesh vs State of Maharasthra
& Anr.”, bearing Criminal Application No.
2810 of 2021, whereas quashing an F.I.R. bearing No. 401/2021 dated
13.10.2021 registered below sections 385, 341, 323, 504, 506, 507
learn with 34 of I.P.C. to the extent of the Applicant therein, has
opined that when there may be using prison legislation within the backdrop
of civil disputes and when the proceedings are initiated with an
ulterior motive, it quantities to abuse of strategy of legislation.

Brief Facts:

1. The criticism was registered by one Mr. Laxman alleging that
his father, his stepbrother, and his kinfolk had been pressurizing
him into promoting his ancestral land and self-acquired property and
giving Rs.60,00,000/- to them by issuing life threats and
blackmailing him.

2. That on 12.10.2021, the complainant was coming back from Newasa on
his bike at evening when the car was intercepted by his
father and his stepbrother. The complainant alleged that his father
and stepbrother gave him fist and kick blows and constantly
demanded Rs.60 Lakhs from him. It can be alleged that the daddy
and the stepbrother threatened the complainant that if he doesn’t
meet their calls for, false instances could be lodged towards him, aside
from issuing life threats.

3. Accordingly, the above-mentioned F.I.R. was registered on the
behest of the Complainant towards the daddy, the stepbrother, the
step brother-in-law and a relative of the step-brother-in-law (the
applicant within the current case) for the alleged offenses passed off
on the evening of 12.10.2021.

Issues:-

1. Can a prison continuing be initiated with ulterior motive
when there’s a mix of civil disputes pending between the
events?

2. If there isn’t any materials towards the accused individual and he/she is
named as an accused individual within the F.I.R., can the prison
proceedings be continued towards him/her?

3. Can a criticism which is a counterblast to the civil disputes
between events be tenable in eyes of legislation?

Court Observations:-

1. After scrutinization of paperwork together with the F.I.R., the
Hon’ble Division Bench opined that there’s an ancestral land
within the image and dispute concerning the identical is pending earlier than the
civil courtroom. On examination of the criticism, it was noticed that
no overt act in any respect was attributed to the applicant, who
occurs to be the relative of step brother-in-law, within the incident
which passed off on the evening of 12.10.2021 and nonetheless he was named
as an accused within the criticism together with others.

2. The Hon’ble courtroom held that since there’s a mix of civil
instances pending earlier than the civil courts and there may be additionally a case
pending from the applicant’s facet towards the complainant, the
current F.I.R. is a results of counterblast and is a mere
afterthought.

3. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court relied upon the ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex courtroom in varied landmark judgments
and held that when there may be use of prison legislation within the backdrop of
civil disputes and when it’s clear that the proceedings are
initiated with ulterior motive, it quantities to gross abuse of
course of.

4. The Hon’ble Division Bench relied upon the case of M. Suresh
& Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.¹
whereby the Hon’ble Supreme courtroom noticed that strategy of
prison legislation can’t be current into service merely for settling a
civil dispute when no offence is dedicated. Further, reliance was
positioned upon the case of Chandran Ratnaswami vs Ok.C. Palanisamy
& Ors.² whereby the Hon’ble Supreme courtroom has
noticed that there’s an impression that civil legislation treatments are
time-consuming and don’t adequately shield the pursuits of
lenders/collectors. Therefore, it’s the responsibility and obligation of the
prison courtroom to train quite a lot of warning in issuing the
course of, notably when issues are basically of civil
nature.

5. The reliance was additionally positioned on the judgment of Inder Mohan
Goswami³ whereby the Hon’ble Apex courtroom referred to
varied judgments together with the landmark judgment handed in State
of Haryana & Ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & Ors.⁴ Where it
has been noticed that the dispute in query was purely of civil
nature and initiating prison proceedings was clearly an abuse of
the method of the Court.

6. In the current dispute, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court discovered
it clear and clear that there’s a historical past of civil dispute
between the complainant, his father and his step brother. The
current applicant will not be in shut relation with both the
complainant or the opposite accused. It was additional noticed that no
function was attributed pertaining to the current applicant, nevertheless,
nonetheless his identify is inserted within the F.I.R. with out attributing any
overt act to him.

Conclusion

After bearing in mind the info and circumstances of the
case and aligning them with the mandatory judicial precedents, it
was opined by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that
continuation of prison proceedings towards the applicant would
quantity to sheer abuse of strategy of legislation. In view of the identical,
F.I.R. in query and the proceedings emanating therefrom had been
quashed and set-aside, solely to the extent if the applicant.

Footnotes

1. (2018) 15 SCC 273

2. (2013) 6 SCC 740

3. (2007) 12 SCC 1

4. AIR 1992 SC 604

For additional info please contact at S.S Rana &
Co. e mail: info@ssrana.in or name at (+91- 11 4012 3000).
Our web site could be accessed at
www.ssrana.in

The content material of this text is meant to supply a common
information to the subject material. Specialist recommendation ought to be sought
about your particular circumstances.