1 Appln 1927-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1927 OF 2010 Navnit Mohanlal Ruparelia & ors .Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors .Respondents Mr.Atul S. Tungare, Advocate, for the Applicants Mrs.P.H.Kantharia, APP, for Respondent No.1  State Mr.M.G.Shukla i/b. Mr.Girish Kulkarni, Advocate, for Respondent No.2 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 5TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. . This is an application for quashing the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 26 th Court, Borivali forming Criminal Case No.2600061/PW/10 initiated on a charge sheet filed by the Borivali Police Station. The applicants are uncle, aunt and cousin of first informant's husband. The first informant filed a report before the police on 8th October, 2009 for the offences 2 Appln 1927-10 punishable under Section 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that first informant's family as well as family of the present applicants was joint; the first informant had entrusted her ornaments to the present applicants and the present applicants had refused to return the ornaments to her. Though, this report was given on 8th October, 2009 and the offence was registered thereupon, it appears that in May, 2009 itself, a complaint was made to Malabar Hill Police Station by first informant's father. This was preceded by a report by the present applicant No.1 against first informant's husband and father i. e. Sameer and Himmatlal Dwarkadas for house breaking and theft. There was also another report filed by applicant No.1 against these persons for the offence punishable under Sections 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In both the cases, after investigation, charge sheets have been filed. 3 Appln 1927-10 2. The learned Counsel for the applicants drew my attention to the notices issued on behalf of the first informant's husband, Sameer, by Advocate Mr. H.S.Shreepad Murthy, particularly, the notices dated 31st March, 2009 & 14th April, 2009 to support his contention that there were already disputes in the family and that there was no joint family, ruling out case of harassment or ill-treatment to daughter-in-law in the family or entrustment of ornaments of such daughter-in- law to the present applicants. The learned Counsel for the applicants also drew my attention to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in INDIAN OIL CORPN. Versus NEPC INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS, reported at (2006)6 Supreme Court Cases 736 on the question of invocation of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In para 12 & 13 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court has elicited some principles on the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4 Appln 1927-10 They may be usefully reproduced as under :- 12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few  Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque. The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. 5 Appln 1927-10 (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceedings is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civic wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceedings, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is 6 Appln 1927-10 available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lender/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. this Court observed: (SCC p.643, para 8) It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of 7 Appln 1927-10 the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicants also drew my attention to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma Versus Union Of India And Ors, reported at 2005 Cri.L.J.3439, where, in para 15, the Court was critical about abuse of provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Bearing in mind observations of the Supreme Court in the Judgments referred to above, I have considered the arguments advanced. First, it would be inappropriate for me to analyze the material on record and to refer to the so called contradictions on which the learned Counsel for the applicants places reliance. Whether there was a joint family or not, or whether existence of such family stood ruled out from notice dated 14th April, 2009 issued by Advocate Mr. H.S.Shripad Murthy on behalf of Sameer, would be a matter to be decided at the 8 Appln 1927-10 trial. In any case, the notice does not unequivocally ruled out existence of joint family. Amongst other things, it states that the present applicants are not welcome to the premises in the occupation of Sameer on the 5th floor of Kailash Kutir and request them not to enter Flat No.601. It is the first informant's case that meal of entire family used to cooked in Flat No.601. Therefore, whether notice dated 14th April, 2009 indicated total non-user or if the present applicants, in spite of requests, continued to use common facilities, would be a matter to be looked into at the trial. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicants next submitted that there was absolutely no occasion for the first informant to entrust her ornaments to the present applicants, who are her husband's uncle & aunt. This too, has to be considered in the light of the fact that the first informant's father-in-law expired 9 Appln 1927-10 soon after her marriage in 2001 and the applicants are eldest member of the family after demise of first informant's father-in- law. In view of this, the question as to whether the first informant had in fact entrusted her ornaments to the present applicants or not would also have to await receipt of evidence and appreciation thereof at the trial. 5. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of INDIAN OIL CORPN. Versus NEPC INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS, neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is called for. In this case, police have, after completing investigation, and collecting requisite material, filed charge sheet and the charge sheet & statements as collected do not on their face show that the complaint is filed either in order to settle 10 Appln 1927-10 family dispute or to force the applicants to reach settlement or it is a Civil dispute disguised as crime. Therefore, there is no question of quashing the proceedings by invoking provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Criminal Application is rejected. 7. It is made clear that all the observations made herein are for the purpose of deciding this application and would not preclude the applicants from seeking appropriate relief from the Trial Court. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)