A woman filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) asking the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered against the accused under various serious sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, and assault.
The accused (Petitioner) then approached the High Court, requesting to quash the FIR, arguing that the dispute between them was actually civil in nature, not criminal. He also informed the court that a civil case between the same parties was already pending in a civil court for the same issue.
However, the High Court refused to quash the FIR and directed the matter to go through a regular criminal trial.
Unhappy with this decision, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
After carefully examining the case, the Supreme Court observed that the issue was mainly a civil dispute, and a civil suit was already ongoing. The Court also noted that the complainant had intentionally hidden the fact about the civil case from the Magistrate when asking for the FIR to be registered.
The Supreme Court ruled that no criminal offence was made out, and therefore, the FIR and all related criminal proceedings were quashed.
My Opinion
The Supreme Court has taken the right step in quashing the FIR in this case. When a party deliberately conceals material facts—such as the pendency of a civil suit—and uses criminal law as a tool to exert pressure or gain leverage, it amounts to an abuse of the legal process. Coercive criminal proceedings should never be permitted to proceed on the back of suppression of relevant facts. The complainant’s conduct in hiding the civil proceedings while invoking Section 156(3) CrPC clearly demonstrates a mala fide intent. Such concealment must weigh heavily against the party seeking criminal action, especially when the dispute is inherently civil. This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law cannot be weaponized for private vendettas or to bypass civil remedies. The Court has rightly upheld the sanctity of fair legal process and ensured that criminal jurisprudence is not misused as a shortcut to settle civil scores.