0

Criminal Proceedings against the Special Armed Forces (SAF) Officers is an Abuse of Process of Law – Supreme Court

Blog , , ,

Case Title – Murari Lal Chhari & Ors vs Munishwar Singh Tomar & Anr.     

Case No. – Criminal Appeal No(s).1076 OF 2024

Decided On – March 04, 2024

Quoram – Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

The issue in this case involved a boundary dispute between the SAF (Special Armed Force) and the first respondent relating to the land bearing Survey Nos.1822 and 1823 having an area of 2 bighas and 1 biswa in Gwalior city.

Facts of the case

The first respondent filed a civil suit before the trial for the declaration of his title as Bhumiswami and a permanent injunction. After, subsequent dismissal of the suits by trial and appellant court, the High court interfered on the second appeal and passed a decree of declaration and permanent injunction.

The first appellant, the Commandant of the 14th Battalion of SAF at Gwalior violated this decree of the High Court by trespassing upon the suit property. Hence, in 2016, the first respondent filed a Contempt Petition against the first appellant. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, the respondent filed a complaint against the appellants under Section 200 of CrPC alleging the commission of offences under Sections 323, 294, 427, 341, 447, 506B read with Section 34 and Section 107, 141 of IPC.

The allegation in the complaint was that though the first respondent was declared as the owner of the suit property by the High Court and though the demarcation of the suit property was carried out after notice to the SAF, the first appellant conspired with the other officers to illegally capture the suit property.

The respondent also alleged that that the accused officers broke the fencing and when he objected, they verbally abused him and he was pushed several time and even gave a death threat.

The matter was filed before the Magistrate. The Magistrate passed an order directing the cognizance to be taken under Sections 294,323, 427, 447, and 506­ of IPC. Subsequently, this order was challenged before the High Court. However, the High court dismissed the petition.

Legal Provisions

Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants.

Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Evidence of witness on oath

Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Postponement of issue of process

Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Dismissal of Complaint

Section 34 of IPC – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

Sections 107 of IPC – Abetment of a thing

Section 141 of IPC – Unlawful Assembly

Section 294 of IPC – Obscene acts or words in public

Sections 323 of IPC – punishment for voluntarily causing hurt

Section 341 of IPC – Punishment for wrongful restraint

Section 427 of IPC – Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees

Section 447 of IPC – Punishment for Criminal Trespass

Section 506B of IPC – Punishment for Criminal Intimidation

Submissions on behalf of the accused appellants

The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that even assuming arguendo that the allegations are true, the acts attributed to the appellants were done by them in the performance of their statutory duties as the officers of SAF and stated that the Magistrate has completely failed to address this aspect in its order.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Magistrate has passed the order with due application of mind and thorough perusal of the witnesses. Hence, contended that there was no merit in challenging the same. Further, he submitted that committing acts of trespass cannot be a part of   the   appellants’ official   duty and hence must be de-bared from protection under the Section 197 of CrPC. The counsel thus submits that a full-fledged trial is necessary in order to convict the accused for the said offences.

Courts Observation and Analysis

In substance, the cause of action for filing the Contempt Petition and the alleged cause of action for filing the complaint was substantially the same. The fact that the Contempt Petition was filed has not even been disclosed in the statement of the first petitioner recorded in the complaint. The first respondent did not challenge the dismissal of the Contempt Petition.

The Court further pointed out another factual error in the proceedings. The first respondent, during the examination of the matter has not given even the date on which alleged acts of encroachment and administering threats were made at the instance of the appellants. Further, the two witnesses appeared also failed furnish the approximate dates   of   the   alleged incidents

Judgement

The Court held that prosecution of the complaint was itself   an   abuse of the process   of   law and hence the the impugned order of the High Court and the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the matter are quashed. Therefore, the complaints filed by the first respondent stands dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

Legal representatives of the deceased developer are not liable to discharge the deceased’s obligations which were primarily based on his skills and expertise – Supreme Court

Blog , , , , ,

Case Title – Vinayak Purshottam Dube (deceased) vs Jayashree Padamkar Bhat & Others

Case No. – Civil Appeal Nos.7768-7769 of 2023

Decided On – March 01, 2024

Quoram – Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

The issue involved in this case was regarding the extent of liability of legal heirs in fulfilling obligations of the deceased developer, a sole proprietor under a development agreement.

In the case of Vinayak Purshottam Dube (deceased) vs Jayashree Padamkar Bhat & Others the appeals have been filed by the legal representatives of the opposite party-sole proprietor against the common final judgment passed by the NCDRC.

Facts of the Case

In this case, the appellants were the legal heirs of the original opposite party in the consumer complaint before the District Forum and the respondents were the complainants. The complainants, Jayashree Padmakar and others, owners of property had entered into a Development Agreement with the opposite party and according to the agreement, the complainants were entitled to receive eight residential flats and Rs.6,50,000/- as consideration.

The opposite party failed to fulfill the payment obligations and hence, the complainants alleged breaches of the agreement. Despite notices issued by the complainants, the opposite party denied the allegations and refused to take actions in that regard.

They filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum. The District Forum considering the Development Agreement between the parties, it held that the opposite party was to be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- and 1,85,000/- along with interest rate of 18% and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of conveyance. Being aggrieved by its order; both parties approached the State Commission.

The State Commission partly modified the order by setting aside the directions to pay Rs. 1.85 lakhs and Rs. 1.65 lakhs as the said claims were held to be time-barred but upheld the direction to pay Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The State Commission also placed reliance on some other clauses of the Development Agreement and directed the opposite party to fulfil their obligations.

Then, a revision petition was filed before the NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). During the pendency of the petition before the NCDRC, the original opposite party – Vinayak Purushottam Dube died and his legal representatives i.e., his wife and two sons were brought on record, who are the appellants before this Court. The NCDRC disagreed with the finding and conclusion of the State Commission with respect to the time-barred transaction. Hence, it upheld the directions of District Forum ordering for the payments of Rs. 1.85 lakhs and Rs. 1.65 lakhs along with interest. The NCDRC also upheld the directions given by the State Commission with respect to fulfillment of their obligations.

The NCDRC, on pursuance of the review petition upheld its earlier findings. Further, NCDRC refused to accept the contention of the appellants-opposite party and held that the death of a developer has no effect upon the obligations of the developer under the Development Agreement and the same have to be executed by the legal heirs of the developer.

Legal provisions

Section 37 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Obligation of parties to Contract

Section 40 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Person by whom promise is to be performed

Section 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Legal Representative

Section 50 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The holder of the decree may apply to the Court to execute it against the legal representative of the deceased, if judgment-debtor dies before the enforcement of the decree.

Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Demands and rights of action of or against deceased survive to and against executor or administrator. Legal Maxim – “actio personalis moritur cum persona” – a personal right of action dies with the person.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants

The learned counsel submits that it not poossible for the legal representatives (wife and sons) to follow the directions of the District Forum and State Commission as they were issued personally against the opposite party who is a deceased now.

He contended that the original opposite party had skills and expertise to comply with the said directions as a developer. But, on his demise, his legal representatives, namely, his widow and two sons cannot be compelled to carry out those directions as they neither possess the necessary skills nor expertise to execute the same. Hence, the counsel submits that the clauses in the Development agreement which placed rights and obligations on Vinayak cannot be enforced against his legal heirs in pursuance of his demise.

Submissions on behalf of the Complainants

The Learned Counsel submits that the Complainants will have no recourse if the said directions are not enforced by the opposite part. He contended that the NCDRC
was justified in directing the legal representatives of the deceased opposite party to take steps for also complying with those directions.

Issue – The Question before the Court was whether the legal representatives can be made liable to comply with those obligations under the Development Agreement on the demise of the original opposite party

Courts Observation and Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the nature of the obligations under the development agreement. It distinguished between proprietary rights (inheritable and having economic value) and personal rights (non-transferable and ending with the individual).

The Court referred to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Sections 37 and 40 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, highlighting that personal obligations dependent on an individual’s skills or competencies are not transferable to legal heirs.

Legal precedents, including Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. Fine Tubes and Ajmera Housing Corporation vs. Amrit M. Patel, were cited to underline those obligations requiring personal performance by the deceased cannot be enforced against legal heirs.

The Court further said that where the decree or order is not against the estate of a deceased sole proprietor but based on the skills and expertise of the sole proprietor, the obligations which had to be performed by the sole proprietor would come to an end on his demise and the same cannot be imposed on his legal heirs or representatives.

Judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that while the legal heirs are responsible for monetary obligations from the deceased’s estate, they are not liable for personal obligations that were specific to the developer’s skills or expertise. Thus, the Court held that the legal representatives of the deceased developer are not liable to discharge the obligations which had to be discharged by the deceased opposite party in his personal capacity. Consequently, the Court set aside the NCDRC’s orders imposing personal obligations on the legal heirs but upheld the monetary liabilities to be settled from the estate.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement