Neeharika Principles and Impermissibility to give Criminal Colour to a Civil Dispute

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On today’s show, we will discuss the case of A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association v. Ramesh Kumar Bung and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 475, wherein the Supreme Court discussed a case wherein interim protection in the form of stay on criminal proceedings, was granted by a High Court to accused persons, in certain criminal proceedings.

 

IMPORTANT LEGAL PROVISION

 

Before adverting any further, let us re-brush our memories by perusing Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It reads as follows: -

 

“Saving of inherent powers of High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

 

Basically, S. 482 provides inherent powers of wide amplitude to the High Courts to pass orders to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. Now, let us understand the background of the present case.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The dispute in the matter involved allegations of electoral fraud and loan fraud, at a point of time when elections were to be conducted for a Co-Operative Society. Several Writ Petitions were filed alleging electoral fraud and some Criminal Complaints were also filed alleging electoral fraud and loan fraud. The High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, granted interim protection to accused persons, who were also the chairpersons of the said Co-Operative Society, on the ground that there is an overlapping of the allegations of electoral fraud and loan fraud, and that there is a tendency to foist criminal complaints at the time of elections.

 

The bare facts of the case are not relevant for the purposes of this show and hence, I will not be discussing the same here. In the instant matter, the Supreme Court extensively referred to its earlier judicial pronouncement of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, that provided guidelines in relation to grant of interim protection in criminal Case. To know more about it, you can watch our earlier show in relation to grant of interim reliefs in criminal cases by visiting the link provided in the description or by clicking here. In Neeharika Case (supra), the Supreme Court had observed that an interim order on stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition should not be passed routinely, casually or mechanically and the High Courts shall restrain themselves from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, but whenever such an Order is passed, the High Court shall clarify the contours and the meaning of “no coercive steps to be adopted” since such term is broad and vague susceptible to misinterpretation.

 

In the present case, the Court further clarified the guidelines laid down in the Neeharika (supra) case. Let us discuss the pertinent observations by the Court in this regard.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court observed that the Neeharika Case (supra) does provide space to the High Courts to pass interim orders of the nature “no coercive steps to be adopted”, by supplementing the same with brief reasons.

 

Secondly, the Court explained that the Neeharika Case (supra) frowned upon the practice of blanket orders that have the tendency of converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute.

 

Thirdly, according to the Courts, the entire sequence of events that took place in the present case point out that an attempt was made to convert an election dispute into a criminal dispute, as “sometimes, persons who raise these disputes manage to camouflage their real motive by words clothed in high moral fibre and strong legal content.”

 

Fourthly, the Court cited an excerpt from the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it was observed that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may be exercised, “where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” According to the Court, such reasoning was approved in the Neeharika Case (supra) and merely because some Writ Petitions were pending in the present case, the same could not be a ground to contend that the High Court got influenced by civil/writ proceedings while granting the interim relief to the accused persons. What needs to be seen is that whether the real nature of dispute is civil or criminal.

 

HELD BY THE COURT

 

Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of the legal principles just discussed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in granting interim protection to accused persons and “the impugned order cannot be said to be bad in the light of Neeharika principles.”

 

Those were the observations of the Court. So, what are my concluding remarks?

 

CONCLUSION

 

I concur with the reasoning of the Court that what really needs to be seen is that in the garb of raising criminal allegations, a civil dispute must not be given criminal colour. Electoral disputes and criminal cases are two entirely different species, and one must not be confused with the other. Even if there is a criminal element involved in an electoral dispute, then our Electoral Law has ample provisions to take care of them and as rightly pointed out by the High Court, overcomplicating an electoral dispute with criminal allegations involving a different subject-matter should not be entertained.