2013 Supreme(SC) 51

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
RAVINDER SINGH - Appellant
VERSUS
SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2013
Decided on : 11-1-2013.

IMPORTANT POINT
Original SC allottee of land transferring land - effect even if transfer illegal.

Headnote:(a) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3 (2)(v) - Ingredients - Merely because the victim/complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the same cannot be the sole ground for prosecution. (Para 10)

        AIR 2000 SC 1876 - Relied upon

        (b) Words and Phrases - False - When used in wider sense, it means something that is untrue whether or not stated intentionally or knowingly - When used in narrower sense, it may cover only such falsehoods, which are intentional - The question whether in a particular enactment, the word false is used in a restricted sense or a wider sense, depends upon the context in which it is used - There is a difference between `not proved and `false - Merely because a party is unable to prove a fact, the same cannot be categorized as false in each and every case. (Para 13)

        (2010) 9 SCC 630; (2000) 10 SCC 636 - Relied upon

        (c) Words and Phrases - Malicious Act - Legitimate indignation does not fall within the ambit of a malicious act - A malicious act has been equated with an intentional act without just cause or excuse. (Para 14)

        AIR 2001 SC 24; AIR 2007 SC 976 - Relied upon

        (d) Words and Phrases - Mala fides - A deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others - A wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse - Has to be proved. (Para 16)

        AIR 2001 SC 343; AIR 2003 SC 1941; AIR 2000 SC 1684; AIR 2003 SC 4536 - Relied upon

        (e) Words and Phrases - Vexatious - It signifies an action not having sufficient grounds, and which therefore, only seeks to annoy the adversary It has no basis in law; and its only effect is to subject the other party to inconvenience, harassment and expense, which is so great, that it is disproportionate to any gain likely to accrue to the claimant - It involves an abuse of process of the court. (Para 17)

        (f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 403 - Rule of Issue-estoppel - Also known as cause of action estoppel - Is different from the principle of double jeopardy or autre fois acquit - It prevents re-litigation of an issue which has been determined in a criminal trial between the parties - If with respect to an offence, arising out of a transaction, a trial has taken place and the accused has been acquitted, another trial with respect to the offence alleged to arise out of the transaction, which requires the court to arrive at a conclusion inconsistent with the conclusion reached at the earlier trial, is prohibited - In order to invoke the rule, not only the parties in the two trials should be the same but also, the fact in issue, proved or not, as present in the earlier trial, must be identical to what is sought to be re-agitated in the subsequent trial - If the cause of action was determined to exist, the same is said to be merged in the judgment - If it was determined not to exist, the unsuccessful plaintiff can no longer assert that it does; he is estopped per rem judicatam. (Para 18)

        AIR 1965 SC 87; AIR 1969 SC 961; AIR 1970 SC 771; AIR 1974 SC 28; AIR 1975 SC 856; AIR 1986 SC 111; AIR 2005 SC 626; AIR 2005 SC 2392 - Relied upon

        (g) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts is not always prohibited - Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by invoking the jurisdiction of criminal courts in a cheap manner - Such criminal proceedings should be quashed. (Paras 19 and 20)

        (2012) 1 SCC 130; AIR 1962 SC 876; AIR 2001 SC 784; AIR 2003 SC 702; AIR 2005 SC 38; AIR 1982 SC 1238 - Relied upon

        (h) Administration of Justice - Binding precedent - Co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench - Ratio decidendi. (Paras 21 and 22)

        AIR 1963 SC 151; AIR 1970 SC 1002; AIR 1980 SC 1762; AIR 2002 SC 1598; AIR 1990 SC 1607 - Relied upon

        (i) Land Laws - Original allottee, a SC, transferring the land to a person - Another person encroaching the same and his descendent claiming title alleging illegality of the transfer by the allottee - Held, transfer by the original allottee at initial stage, even if illegal, would not confer any right to the encroacher - The land in that case would revert back to the Government. (Para 24)

        (j) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - High Court dealing with the issue and closing the case at the instance of the aggrieved party - There can be no justification whatsoever to launch criminal prosecution on that basis afresh. (Para 25)

       Facts of the case:

        One Anant Ram, a SC, was allotted a piece of land under the 20 Point Programme of the Government of India (Poverty Elevation Programme).

        He sold the land to one Ram Lal Aggarwal in the year 1989, who further transferred it to his son Anil Kumar Aggarwal in the year 1990. Anil Kumar Aggarwal sold the same to appellant Ravinder Singh in the year 2005.

        Respondent No. 1, who at the relevant time was holding a very high position in the Central Government, claimed that initial transfer by Anant Ram, the original allottee, in favour of Ram Lal Aggarwal was illegal and he could not transfer the land allotted to him by the Government under Poverty Elevation Programme. He also asserted that as the said land had been encroached upon by his father, he had a right to get his name entered in the revenue record.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned judgments and orders of the Revisional Court as well as the High Court cannot be sustained.

       Result : Appeal allowed.