1. Appeal against refusal to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 420/467 IPC arising from civil land dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G.Balakrishnan, CJI, R. V. Raveendran & Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Inder Mohan Goswami & Another – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttaranchal & Others – Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1392 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.3658 of 2004)
Decided On : 09-10-2007
.
The legal document discusses the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Others versus the State of Uttaranchal, focusing on the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants. The core issues revolve around whether the criminal charges under sections related to cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy are justified, or whether the matter is essentially of a civil nature requiring resolution in a civil court.
The appellants, who are office-bearers of a charitable organization, took steps to cancel a Power of Attorney and sold part of the land to protect the interests of the organization after the respondents failed to fulfill their contractual obligations. They contend that their actions were motivated by the need to safeguard the organization's assets and that the subsequent criminal proceedings are an abuse of process, primarily motivated by civil disputes over land rights.
The court emphasizes that the powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, mainly to prevent abuse of the judicial process or to secure the ends of justice. It highlights that allegations in the FIR must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether they constitute a prima facie case or are frivolous or motivated by malice. The document underscores that when civil rights and disputes are involved, and the core issues pertain to land rights and contractual obligations, criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment.
In this case, the court finds that the allegations do not substantiate the criminal charges under the specified sections and that the matter is predominantly civil in nature. Consequently, the court concludes that continuing with the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process. Therefore, it sets aside the impugned order of the High Court and directs that all proceedings stemming from the FIR be quashed, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding individual liberty while balancing societal interests. The parties are directed to bear their own costs, and the civil court is instructed to decide the pending civil suit independently of the criminal proceedings.
1. Appeal against refusal to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 420/467 IPC arising from civil land dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
2. Appellants argued dispute civil; respondents alleged cheating and forgery regarding cancellation of power of attorney and sale. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
3. Held allegations do not make out offences under Sections 420/467 IPC; dispute civil; criminal proceedings abuse of process. (Para 22 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 )
4. When FIR allegations do not disclose offence, High Court should quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process. (Para 23 , 31 , 43 , 44 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; all proceedings from FIR quashed; parties bear own costs. (Para 57 )
The High Court can quash proceedings when allegations do not disclose any offence or when continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process. (Para 23 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 44 )
Cheating requires fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise; mere failure to keep promise does not constitute cheating. (Para 38 , 39 )
Non-bailable warrants should be issued only when summons or bailable warrants unlikely to secure attendance or accused may cause harm; caution required. (Para 45 , 47 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 )
Forgery requires forging a document that is a valuable security or will; missing basic ingredients means prosecution unsustainable. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 )
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th July, 2004 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.248 of 2003 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital. The appellants had to file an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because the Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh issued a non-bailable warrant against the appellants on the basis of First Information Report under Sections 420/467 IPC filed by the respondents.
Basic Facts
3. In 1923, Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya founded Sanatan Dharma Pratinidhi Sabha, Punjab (hereinafter referred as the Sabha ). Some of the objects of the Sabha are to open and maintain temples, dharamshalas, ashrams and to manage schools and colleges for the overall development of children. Moreover, it seeks to open hospitals for the poor and to develop the physical and mental state of the youth etc. It is averred that the Sabha from its inception is engaged in the work of uplifting backward and downtrodden people and is a grass root organization in the field of social development. The Sabha was registered in the year 1949 under the Societies Registration Act.
4. In order to develop a Ghat on the bank of river Ganga near Sapatrishi Ashram in Hardwar, the Sabha issued an advertisement in the newspapers; it invited bids from the eligible civil contractors to construct the Ghat in consideration of 13.5 Bighas (approximately) of its land situated in old Khasra No.140 and new Khasra Nos.61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and part of 89, 90 in village Haripur Kalan, Rishikesh, Dehradun out of the total land of 26 Bighas owned by the Sabha. The Ghat was so constructed by one Himmat Rai Ahuja, respondent no.3 herein, on behalf of M/s Ahuja Builders.
5. On completion of the construction of the Ghat, the Sabha through its President Pt. Mohan Lal Sharma executed a General Power of Attorney on 13.12.1996 in favour of respondent no.3 in regard to the abovementioned land measuring 13.5 Bighas (out of the total of 26 Bighas approximately). On the same date, a receipt of Rs.17,92,000/- lakhs (approximately) was issued by the Sabha to respondent no.3 as an adjustment towards the cost of construction of the Ghat for which the said land of 13.5 Bighas was transferred by executing a General Power of Attorney dated 13.12.1996 in favour of respondent no. 3. On the same day the parties executed an agreement to sell the remaining land situated at Old Khasra No.140 and new Khasra No.89 in Village Haripur Kalan, Rishikesh at the rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per Bigha (which was approx. 11.19 Bighas). In pursuance to this, an earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/- was received by the Sabha from respondent no.3. As per the agreement, respondent no.3 had to pay another Rs.1,00,000/- to the Sabha by 31.1.1997. This amount was paid by respondent no.3 on 21.3.1997 and the balance amount of Rs.10,10,650/- had to be paid by 31.3.1997.
6. According to the appellants, time was the essence of the contract and respondent no.3 had failed to pay the balance amount by Rs.10,10,650/-. The Sabha had sent a legal notice dated 3.4.1999 (first legal notice) to respondent no.3 to fulfill his contractual obligations under the sale agreement and informing that if he failed to do so, the agreement to sell would stand cancelled and the amount paid as earnest money would be forfeited. In reply to the said notice, respondent no.3 vide his reply dated 5.5.1999 stated that he had not defaulted in payment of the remaining amount. He stated in the reply that as per the agreement the land had to be measured and that he was ready to pay the balance amount once that was done.
7. Pt. Mohan Lal Sharma, the President of the Sabha, expired on 30.8.1999. On 5.1.2000, both the parties i.e. the representative of the Sabha and the representatives of M/s Ahuja Builders met at the site of the disputed land in the presence of Patwari (Revenue Official). The land of ol
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top