Dr. Sonia Verma vs. The State of Haryana (2024)

Spread the love

Post Views: 75

CITATION	(2024) INSC 227
YEAR OF JUDGEMENT	2024
STATUES REFERRED IN THIS CASE	Indian Penal Code- Sections 506, 420, 34, 120-B, and 467Code of Criminal Procedure- Section 482
PLAINTIFF	Dr. Sonia Verma & Anr.
DEFENDANT	State of Haryana & Respondent No. 2
BENCH	Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Introduction

The case of Dr. Sonia Verma v. The State of Haryana, decided by the Supreme Court depicts the judiciary’s responsibility to safeguard the integrity of legal proceedings. This case, decided on March 7^th, 2024 highlights the misuse of the criminal code in situations that are fundamentally civil in character. This case involves the dispute of a maternity and trauma hospital in Rewari, Haryana run by the appellants Dr. Sonia Verma. Respondent No. 2 challenged the appellants’ claim to possession of the property, claiming fraud and forgery in a registered sale deed. This case highlights the thin line between civil disputes and criminal allegations, with both parties involved in parallel legal battles. The appellants had filed a FIR accusing the respondent’s family of fraudulently collecting rent and have filed a civil suit to safeguard their ownership rights. In response, the respondent accused the appellants of forgery in a formal complaint. The case of Dr. Sonia Verma v. State of Haryana is an example to highlight the judiciary’s duty to stop civil disputes from becoming crimes and to make sure that legal remedies are sought in the right place. Given on March 7^th, 2024 this ruling shows the strong possibility of abuse of the provisions of the criminal code when the matter therein is essentially civil in nature.

Facts of the Case

The case revolves a property dispute between Dr. Sonia Verma and her associate who operated a trauma and maternity facility in the village of Suthani in Haryana. At first, the appellants ran the hospital on a plot of land that they had rented from Respondent No. 2’s son. The property was rented for Rs. 25,000 a month. The appellants asserted that they paid Rs. 43,00,000 to Sher Singh for the property on August 23, 2022 using a registered sale transaction (Sale Transaction No. 1485). The land was listed as Khewat No. 1, Khatauni No. 1, Mustkil No. 33, Killa No. 26 on the sale deed. After making this purchase, the appellants claimed ownership of the property and stopped renting to Respondent No 2’s son.

On September 27^th, 2022 the appellants filed a civil suit (no. 294/2022) in anticipation of eviction attempts, requesting a permanent injunction to safeguard their ownership of the property. The Civil Court by granting an ad-interim injunction in its ruling on November 18, 2022 acknowledged the appellants’ prima facie ownership based on the registered sale document and its chain of transfer.

The appellants accused Respondent No. 2’s spouse, Kaptan Singh and others of collecting rent fraudulently without the property’s legitimate title and threatening to evict the property in a formal complaint (FIR No. 372/2022) filed on October 29^th, 2022. Two days later, on 31st October 2022, the appellants, along with Sher Singh, were accused of having forged the sale deed and entered false information of the property in her length to take possession of this property. Respondent no. 2, with the alleged transfer deed dated 22nd August 2017, claimed to own the very estate identified as Killa No. 8, and contended that she has never alienated the property. The fixtures were laid by Respondent No. 2 under a FIR and a charge sheet was filed against the appellants on 17th March, 2023. The appellants had received protection in this case in the form of an anticipatory bail. The appellants then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the subject FIR. The High Court held that the aforementioned appellants were proved on the counts of alleged crimes, hence quashing was denied to them.

This paved the way for the Supreme Court to consider whether the disagreement included criminal responsibility or simply a civil issue.

Issues Raised

Whether the dispute between the parties is civil in nature or involves criminal liability.
Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR filed by Respondent No. 2.

Arguments by the Appellants (Plaintiffs)

Dr. Sonia Verma and her associate, the appellants, made a strong case that the disagreement was mostly civil in nature and shouldn’t have been assigned a criminal component. They stated that the legality of the registered sale deed, which they used to demonstrate their ownership of the hospital property, was the main point of contention.

To demonstrate their good faith and willingness to determine the matter through the channels of a civil suit, Appellants had already put in a civil complaint seeking a permanent injunction for protection of their property. Being the complainants involved, with the filed civil action and the FIR against Respondent No.2’s family, they alleged that Respondent No.2’s FIR was ‘malicious, intended to place them in the defense position’. They stressed the FIR’s suspicious timing, suggesting that it had been lodged immediately after the appellants’ criminal complaint and civil suit, showing that it was retaliatory in nature and seeking to compromise their rightful claims.

In order to show that the criminal charge lacked real merit, the timeline of events was highlighted. The appellants emphasised that Respondent No. 2’s accusations surfaced after they had obtained an interim injunction and established prima facie ownership in the civil court.

Using legal precedents to support them, the appellants claimed that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the legal process. They referred to rulings that warn against using criminal accusations to cover up civil problems in order to harass or threaten the other party. They further argued that it was against judicial propriety norms to pursue parallel criminal prosecutions when civil remedies were already in place.

By using these grounds, the appellants urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the criminal FIR and uphold the idea that civil law should be used to decide the case.

Arguments by the Respondents (Defendants)

Representing the respondents, the State of Haryana contended that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which were referred to in the FIR provided ample prima facie evidence to prosecute the appellants. Sections 506, 420, 34, 120-B and 467 which deal with criminal intimidation, cheating, criminal conspiracy and forging respectively were among the provisions stated in the FIR. The State argued that the accusations in Respondent No. 2’s FIR established the necessary components of these offences and offered a legitimate foundation for prosecution.

The respondents stressed that it was proper and legally reasonable for the High Court to refuse to suppress the FIR. They argued that a full investigation and trial were necessary because the accusations made in the FIR revealed crimes that may be prosecuted. The State said that when accusations of criminal conduct like fraud and forgery were established, the start of criminal proceedings was not hindered by the existence of a civil dispute over the property’s title.

The appellants’ reliance on the ongoing civil litigation was further argued to be inadequate as a defence against criminal responsibility. The respondents argued that the law allows the start of criminal proceedings even when a connected civil dispute is already in progress and that civil and criminal remedies are not mutually exclusive.

Additionally, the State contended that the appellants’ version of events did not refute the FIR’s allegations. Rather, an independent criminal investigation was necessary to find the truth regarding the registered sale deed’s alleged forgery and misrepresentation of property data.

By claiming that the accusations were grave and needed to be decided by the criminal justice system, the respondents aimed to defend the ongoing of criminal proceedings against the appellants.

Principles Applied

The Supreme Court referred to the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, where it said that courts must apply judicial scrutiny in order to stop the misusebof criminal law as a means of settling civil issues. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that issues that are essentially civil in nature should not be resolved by the application of criminal law. The Court pointed out that criminal law should not be used to pass off civil issues as criminal offences, even while it has a legitimate place in dealing with fraudulent transactions and punishing wrongdoing. It emphasised how crucial it is to distinguish between legitimate criminal accusations and matters that are better handled by civil remedies. In a civil dispute, the judiciary must make sure that criminal procedures are not initiated or pursued with the malicious goal to harass or manipulate the other party. The Court also made it clear that if there are criminal components to the charges, the existence of a civil remedy does not necessarily exclude criminal responsibility. However, it further said that the argument is mostly civil in character when the central question concerns property ownership and the legality of a sale deed. Therefore, by applying this principle, the court reaffirmed the necessity of judicial vigilance in safeguarding people against the misuse of the criminal justice system and making sure that legal remedies are sought in the proper venue without resulting in excessive harassment.

Judgment

In its ruling in Dr. Sonia Verma v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the case was primarily civil in character. The Court underlined that the primary concerns was the legality of the registered sale document and the chain of property ownership, which meant that civil law rather than criminal proceedings should handle the problem. The Court noted that the appellants had already started both civil and criminal proceedings when Respondent No. 2 filed the First Information Report against them. This series of events revealed Respondent No. 2’s hidden agenda, which was to utilise criminal law to refute the appellants’ legitimate claims. The Supreme Court further pointed out that Respondent No. 2 did not challenge the case that was before it, which further undermined her defence and called into question the veracity of the accusations in the FIR. Considering these elements, the Court determined that Respondent No. 2’s FIR was a misuse of the legal system and completely revoked it. Additionally, it overturned the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to not dismiss the FIR, claiming that the High Court had overlooked the civil character of the conflict. The appellants’ continuing civil claim will remain unaffected by the FIR’s quashing, the Supreme Court clarified. The ruling upheld the appellants’ right to seek settlement through the proper legal remedies and reaffirmed the long-standing rule that criminal law should not be applied to resolve civil affairs.

Analysis

The ruling in Dr. Sonia Verma v. State of Haryana emphasises how important the judiciary is to protect the legal system from criminal law abuse for illicit purposes. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule that criminal actions cannot and should not be utilised in place of civil remedies by dismissing Respondent No. 2’s FIR. In order to prevent harassment and make sure that the legal system is not exploited, the ruling emphasises the necessity for courts to closely examine the motivations underlying criminal accusations, especially in situations involving property or business conflicts. Additionally, the ruling highlights the significance of appropriate legal documentation and due diligence in real estate transactions. The appellants’ prima facie claim to the property was established in large part by their ability to produce a clear chain of sale deeds that showed the order of ownership transfers. Additionally, the civil court’s ad-interim order strengthened the appellants’ credibility and demonstrated their justifiable desire to settle the dispute through civil proceedings. This ruling serves as a reminder to both litigants and courts that, absent unmistakable proof of criminal intent, disagreements over property ownership or business dealings should be resolved mainly through civil remedies. It upholds the judiciary’s responsibility to prevent the abuse of criminal law to resolve civil or personal conflicts, preserving the integrity of the legal system and shielding people from unnecessary harassment.

Conclusion

The crucial balance between India’s criminal and civil laws is illustrated by the case of Dr. Sonia Verma vs. The State of Haryana. The appellants’ right to seek civil remedies free from excessive harassment was preserved when the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal FIR. The judiciary’s duty to distinguish between actual criminal offences and civil disputes disguised as criminal proceedings is emphasised by this ruling. By doing so the Court reaffirmed the necessity of judicial vigilance in defending justice and safeguarding the integrity of the legal system, underscoring the significance of preventing the abuse of criminal law and making sure that legal procedures are not exploited.

REFERENCES

This Case study is written by Mahalakshmi Indireddy, student of O.P Jindal Global University and an Intern of Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.