Criminal proceedings cannot be used as an instrument of oppression to settle pure civil disputes.

The petitioner filed a criminal complaint alleging that Respondents No. 1 and 2, in conspiracy with Respondent No. 3 (an auto driver), committed theft by breaking a wall of his shop and removing articles on 05.09.2021

The petitioner claimed he received telephonic information regarding the theft but the police failed to register an FIR

The Trial Court (Special Mobile Magistrate, Electricity, Jammu) took cognizance and ordered an inquiry by the SSP, Jammu, which subsequently reported that the allegations could not be proved

On 23.06.2022, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint, concluding it was a counterblast to ongoing civil litigation regarding the same shop and lacked specific details

The petitioner challenged this dismissal before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS)

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint as a "counterblast" to civil litigation despite the petitioner’s claims of theft

2. Whether the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to proceed with a criminal trial or if they constituted an abuse of the process of law

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/BNSS) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of any court

It relied on the established principle that inherent jurisdiction must be exercised with extreme caution and only to achieve the salutary purpose of ensuring that legal proceedings do not degenerate into weapons of harassment or persecution

the court applied the doctrine that civil disputes cannot be camouflaged or given a "criminal texture" to settle private vendettas or wreck vengeance

The Court observed that the petitioner’s allegations were "vague and omnibus," lacking necessary details such as the specific dates of occurrences or an inventory of the stolen articles

It noted discrepancies between the petitioner's police complaint and the court complaint; the former mentioned two separate incidents of theft based on hearsay information provided to his son, yet the petitioner failed to disclose why no action was taken after the first alleged incident

The Court found that the enquiry report by the SSP corroborated the lack of evidence against the respondents

Critically, the Court determined that the parties were already embroiled in civil litigation over the shop in question

The Court reasoned that criminal law cannot be used as an instrument of oppression by unscrupulous litigants to settle private scores arising from civil disputes

Consequently, it held that the Trial Court's decision was well-reasoned as the complaint was a manifest attempt to impart a criminal color to a pure civil dispute

The Court held that the complaint lacked merit and was filed with the veiled object of persecuting the respondents

All interim directions were vacated