Court Emphasizes Responsible Use of Preventive Jurisdiction, Condemns Misuse of Criminal Justice System for Personal Vendettas
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed by Raj Kumar Garg, challenging a decision by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. The case revolved around a protracted dispute over Shop No. 43 in Arya Samaj Market, Kurukshetra, between the petitioner and tenant, respondent No. 2. The High Court’s judgment reaffirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's request to invoke Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C., which was initially overruled by the Sessions Judge.
Justice Sumeet Goel, presiding over the case, highlighted the misuse of preventive jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court observed that such provisions should be reserved for genuine and imminent threats of breach of peace, supported by tangible evidence. It cannot be employed as a parallel mechanism to undermine civil court decisions or settle personal scores.
The backdrop of the case was a long-standing tenancy dispute, with multiple legal actions initiated by both parties. Despite a civil court's interim injunction against the tenant, Raj Kumar Garg attempted to use criminal proceedings to assert control over the disputed property. The High Court noted the absence of immediate danger warranting the attachment of property or appointment of a receiver, as required under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C.
The court condemned the trend of litigants misusing criminal jurisdiction to pursue personal vendettas, warning against the diversion of judicial resources away from genuine legal controversies. Emphasizing the importance of maintaining the sanctity of the judicial process, the court called for measures to deter frivolous and vindictive litigation.
Justice Goel's judgment aligns with the Supreme Court's previous rulings, which stress the need for a cautious approach in invoking preventive jurisdiction. The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings must not be initiated as a tool for harassment or to bypass the due process of civil law.
The decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding against the abuse of legal processes, ensuring that the courts remain forums for legitimate grievances rather than battlegrounds for personal conflicts.
Bottom Line:
The jurisdiction under Sections 145 and 146 of the Cr.P.C. is preventive in nature and must be invoked sparingly, only upon a genuine and imminent apprehension of breach of peace, supported by objective material. It cannot be used as a parallel mechanism to circumvent or dilute orders of a Civil Court, nor as a tool for personal vendettas.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528,
Cr.P.C. - Sections 145, 146
Raj Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2885680
