Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case in Partnership Dispute

The case of Govind Prasad Kejriwal vs. State of Bihar & Anr. is a landmark ruling where the Supreme Court addressed the misuse of criminal law in civil disputes. The Court quashed a criminal complaint that had arisen out of a partnership business dispute, reaffirming that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for settling purely civil conflicts.

Background of the Case

• The appellant, Govind Prasad Kejriwal, was a partner in Kejriwal Films, a business that operated a cinema hall named Savera Chitra Mandir.
• The dispute began when the firm’s cinema license was surrendered to the District Magistrate, leading to the closure of the cinema on February 5, 2000.
• One of the other partners, Ramesh Kumar, and his brother, Gopal Prasad (the complainant), opposed this closure, leading to escalating tensions.
• On December 19, 2001, Gopal Prasad filed a criminal complaint (Complaint No. 464 of 2001) against the appellant, alleging criminal trespass, theft, and assault under Sections 323, 341, 379 IPC.
• In the complaint, he alleged that the appellant had broken into the cinema hall, stolen documents and equipment, and forcibly removed him from the premises.
• The Judicial Magistrate initially dismissed the complaint on February 14, 2003, citing lack of merit.
• However, on appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Barh, set aside this dismissal and ordered further inquiry.
• After reinvestigation, on July 25, 2005, the Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the appellant.
• The appellant moved the Patna High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, but his plea was dismissed.
• He then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the criminal charges.

Legal Issues Considered

• Whether the dispute was civil in nature and should have been handled in a civil court instead of a criminal proceeding.
• Whether criminal charges under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 379 (theft) were sustainable based on the complaint.
• Whether a partner in a business could be criminally prosecuted for actions related to a business dispute.
• Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Govind Prasad Kejriwal)

• The petitioner argued that the case was purely a civil dispute over partnership property and could not constitute a criminal offense.
• As a partner in Kejriwal Films, he had legal rights over the business premises and its assets.
• The allegations of theft were baseless, as the cinema license had been legally surrendered to the District Magistrate.
• The complainant, Gopal Prasad, was not even a partner in Kejriwal Films and had no standing to file a complaint.
• The High Court erred in allowing the case to continue despite clear evidence that it was an abuse of criminal law.

Arguments of the Respondent (Gopal Prasad)

• The complainant argued that the appellant had forcibly entered the cinema hall and stolen important documents and equipment.
• He further alleged that the appellant had assaulted him and locked him out of the premises.
• He justified his criminal complaint on the basis that the appellant had committed criminal trespass and theft.
• The Sessions Court had already ruled that the complaint required further inquiry, and the Supreme Court should not intervene.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Court ruled that the case was a business dispute and not a matter of criminal law.
• It reaffirmed that criminal law cannot be used to pressurize parties in civil disputes.
• The complainant was not a partner in Kejriwal Films and had no legal right to file a criminal case over a business matter.
• There was no evidence to support allegations of criminal trespass, theft, or wrongful restraint.
• The Court stated: “A purely civil dispute is sought to be given a color of a criminal offense, which is an abuse of the legal process.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

• The criminal proceedings were quashed as they were an abuse of process.
• The orders of the Judicial Magistrate and Patna High Court were set aside.
• The Court warned against using criminal law as a tool to settle business disputes.
• The ruling set a precedent for dismissing criminal cases where civil remedies are available.

This judgment reinforces the principle that disputes related to business partnerships and property should be settled through civil litigation, not criminal prosecution.

Petitioner Name: Govind Prasad Kejriwal.
Respondent Name: State of Bihar & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 31-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Govind Prasad Kejriw vs State of Bihar & Anr Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 31-01-2020.pdf