‘Criminal’ twist in civil dispute? Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court says law not a tool for vendetta

Finding no merit in the petition, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the trial court’s order, describing it as “lucid and well reasoned.” The petition was dismissed, and all interim directions were vacated.

Vague allegations

• A key weakness in the petitioner’s case, the court noted, was the absence of specific details. The complaints referred to two separate incidents of theft, one vaguely described as occurring “one to two months earlier” and another on the night of September 4-5, 2021.
• However, the petitioner failed to provide exact dates, details of stolen items, or clarity on actions taken after the first alleged incident.
• The court termed these as “vague and omnibus allegations” insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings.

Justice Rajesh Sekhri’s ruling adds to a consistent line of judicial precedents cautioning against the misuse of criminal law in civil disputes.

Inherent power of high court

• The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court underscored that the high court’s inherent powers are meant to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, not to encourage vexatious litigation.
• It said the inherent power of the high court to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice and prevent miscarriage of justice is well defined and cannot be exercised in an “arbitrary fashion”.
• It observed that judicial proceedings should not be allowed to degenerate into instruments of harassment, stressing the need for caution while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction.
• A court proceeding ought not be permitted to denigrate into “a weapon of harassment or persecution”, it said, adding that the extraordinary or inherent power of the court requires greater caution in its exercise and it must be careful to ensure that its pronouncements are based on sound principles of law.

Civil dispute given criminal colour

• The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court found that the criminal complaint was essentially an attempt to add pressure on the respondents in an ongoing civil dispute.
• If the contents of the impugned complaint are carefully glanced in the light of attending circumstances emerging from the record, it is clear that “a pure civil dispute is sought to be camouflaged and given a criminal texture” with a veiled object of persecution of the respondents, which is not permissible in law, the court said.

Dispute over shop

• The case arose from a dispute over a shop in Jammu’s Dansal area.
• The petitioner, Shiv Dayal, had approached the high court seeking to set aside a June 23, 2022 order of a special mobile magistrate, which dismissed his complaint.
• He invoked the court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), arguing that the trial court had wrongly rejected his plea.

Allegations of theft

• The petitioner alleged that the respondents broke into his shop by breaching a wall from inside and stole valuable goods.
• He further claimed that one of the accused, an autorickshaw driver, transported the stolen items at their instance.
• According to him, he received telephonic information about the alleged theft on September 5, 2021, and attempted to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) at Jhajjar Kotli Police Station, but no action was taken.

Inquiry report found no substance

• The trial court had directed a detailed inquiry by the senior superintendent of police (SSP), Jammu. The inquiry report concluded that the allegations could not be substantiated.
• Taking note of the report, the magistrate observed that the parties were already embroiled in civil litigation over the shop and that the complaint appeared to be a “counterblast” to that dispute.

Reinforcing legal principle

• The ruling adds to a consistent line of judicial precedents cautioning against the misuse of criminal law in civil disputes, particularly in property-related conflicts.
• By reiterating that criminal proceedings cannot be used as tools of coercion or revenge, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reinforced the principle that the justice system must not be exploited to settle private scores.