In Absence of Criminality, Simultaneous Civil and Criminal Proceedings Amount to Abuse of Process”: Supreme Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court’s judgment in S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. [2025 INSC 917, decided on 31.07.2025] is a powerful restatement of a core principle in criminal jurisprudence: when the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are absent, a parallel criminal case,while a civil suit is pending constitutes an abuse of process.
Beyond that, the Court also addressed a rarely discussed but important procedural facet granting relief to a co-accused who had not approached the Court, on the ground of parity. This judgment thus becomes vital not only for its substantive ratio on criminal law but also for its equitable approach under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Factual Matrix:
The case concerned a property transaction involving a family of landowners (appellants) and a prospective purchaser (complainant), backed by an Agreement to Sell dated 30.11.2015. When disputes arose regarding title clearance and final conveyance, the complainant filed a civil suit for specific performance. Subsequently, and notably, he also initiated criminal proceedings, alleging cheating and breach of trust under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC.
The Magistrate directed registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC, and a chargesheet followed. The High Court declined to quash the FIR. On appeal, the Supreme Court was called upon to examine whether civil and criminal proceedings can co-exist and under what conditions criminal law can be legitimately invoked.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis:
The Court structured its reasoning around two key issues (Para 33):
Whether criminal offences were made out from the facts;
Whether civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously based on the same allegations.
I. On the Absence of Criminal Offence (Paras 34–41):
The Court meticulously examined whether the ingredients of Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and Section 420 (Cheating) IPC were made out. It concluded decisively:
“Here, it is not a case where the accused were entrusted with the subject property. The subject property belongs to them and they had rights over it as owners with title. Thus, the very foundation for invoking Section 406 of the IPC falls to the ground.” (Para 39)
With regard to cheating, the Court held that there was no inducement at the inception or dishonest intention when the agreement was entered into. The complainant’s own conduct, including his civil suit for specific performance, reflected purely a breach of contractual obligations, not criminal misconduct:
“We do not find that by deceiving the complainant, the appellants had fraudulently or dishonestly induced him to deliver the property to them...” (Para 40)
This led to a categorical conclusion:
“Thus, we do not find any criminal aspect in the allegations ex-facie.” (Para 41)
II. On Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings (Paras 42–43):
In Para 42, the Court addressed the nuanced question of whether civil and criminal proceedings can coexist on the same set of facts. The principle is well settled: they can co-exist, but only if the criminality is clear and independent of the civil dispute.
The Court explained:
“In the absence of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the process of the Court...” (Para 42)
The Court heavily relied on:
Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673,
Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC 765,
Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State, (2009) 5 SCC 528.
Particularly quoting Paramjeet Batra, the Bench emphasized:
“The High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence… the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings.” (Para 42)
On the Caution Against ‘Criminalisation of Civil Disputes’:
The Court didn’t just stop at quashing the FIR; it raised larger institutional concerns.
In Para 54, it observed:
“Common citizens who were the beneficiaries of the acquisition by the BDA have been denied the benefits thereof... we have no hesitation in saying so, what could only be termed as collusive litigation…”
Conclusion: A Reaffirmation of Restraint and Justice
The decision in S.N. Vijayalakshmi serves as a stern reminder that criminal law is not a tool of coercion in property or contractual disputes. While the complainant is at liberty to pursue civil remedies, invoking criminal jurisdiction without foundational criminal intent is impermissible.
Furthermore, the extension of relief to a non-appealing co-accused brings to light the Supreme Court’s willingness to prioritize substance over form, ensuring uniform justice for parties similarly situated.
Authored by : Advocate Haraprasad Panda