SHRICHAND RAJARAM KUKREJA v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Discusses misuse of criminal law for civil disputes and principles for quashing FIRs.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 794
Decision Date: 14-05-2025
List of Laws
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Constitution of India, 1949; General Principles of Law
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment discusses Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 IPC. It notes that the appellants were accused of offences punishable under these sections based on the FIR. The appellants argued that the chargesheet's conclusions regarding these sections were vague and unsubstantiated. The court ultimately found that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken as true, did not disclose the necessary ingredients of any offence under these sections, indicating a purely civil dispute.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The judgment refers to Section 173 CrPC, noting that the State filed a report under this section. The court observes that a perusal of this report presented a different picture than the High Court's conclusions. The report did not reference the accused misusing contracts for undue gain. The court also mentions Section 482 CrPC, stating that the appellants filed a quashing petition under this section, which was rejected by the High Court.
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: The judgment mentions that the High Court referred to an action taken against BUL by Kotak Mahindra Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment mentions Article 136 of the Constitution of India, stating that the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under this article, quashed the FIR/criminal proceedings in the cited case of *Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal*.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment emphasizes that criminal machinery should not be used to settle civil disputes. It states that allowing the proceedings of the impugned-FIR and chargesheet would be a gross abuse of the process of the Court. The court also highlights that the High Court's conclusions were based on conjectures and presumptions.
🔒 For Members Only