Manorama versus Vishal SA 371/24 05/04/24 [ HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL] [ MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ]

Suit for declaration of title based on a family settlement deed Both parties filed a compromise petition, which was accepted by the trial court Whether the first appeal was maintainable against the trial court’s order based on a compromise petition The first appeal was not maintainable as the order was passed with the consent of the parties, and such orders can only be challenged in the same court The first appeal was maintainable, and the trial court’s condition regarding the registration of the gift deed was rightly set aside by the appellate court The first appeal was not maintainable The appellate court’s judgment was set aside, and the trial court’s order was restored The first appeal was barred under Section 96(3) of CPC as the order was based on a compromise The court relied on precedents and provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 and Rule 3A CPC, which bar appeals against consent decrees The appeal was allowed, and the appellate court’s judgment was set aside The trial court’s order was restored.

Relevant Paras 

22) The learned counsel for the private respondents has vehemently argued that merely because the private respondents have filed a civil suit against the petitioners does not mean that the criminal proceedings should be quashed. It has been contended that once it is  shown that a criminal offence is made out against the petitioners, the
investigating agency should be allowed to investigate all aspects of the case and that the prosecution cannot be quashed at its inception. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Priti Saraf & anr. vs. State of NCT of Delhi & anr, (2021) 16 SCC 142, M/S SAS Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Telangana & anr. (Criminal Appeal No.2574/2024 decided on 14.05.2024) and Sakiri Vasu vs. State of UP & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409.
23) There can be no quarrel with the legal position that same set of facts can give rise to both a criminal action and an action of civil nature but before taking recourse to a criminal action, it has to be shown that the allegations made in the FIR/complaint coupled with the material collected by the investigating agency during investigation of the case discloses commission of a criminal offence. In the instant case, none of the petitioners is shown to have made any 28) In view of the aforesaid legal position and having regard
to the fact that the allegations made in the impugned FIR and the material collected by the investigating agency do not disclose commission of any criminal offence by the petitioners, this Court would be failing in its duty if it does not come to the rescue of the petitioners and quash the impugned proceedings by exercising its power vested under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. Allowing the criminal proceedings to go on in the case of present nature would encourage the people to settle matters of civil nature by taking resort to criminal proceedings which is impermissible
in law.

For more click here 

SA_371_2024_FinalOrder_05-08-2024 The Law Literates

all rights Reserved (Vaibhav Tomar Adv)