Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.
Sarabjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.815 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1332 of 2007)
Decided on: 1-7-2013
Held: The entire claim of the appellant Sarabjit Singh is based on an agreement to sell. The first information report lodged by the appellant Sarabjit Singh on 10.1.1998 at Police Station Adampur, district Jalandhar, did not even disclose the date of the aforesaid agreement to sell. According to the averments made by the appellant Sarabjit Singh before the High Court, and now before this Court, it is alleged that the aforesaid agreement to sell was executed on 13.3.1992. With reference to the above said agreement to sell, the observations made by the High Court in its order dated 11.2.2002 (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3039-M of 2002) are extremely significant. The aforesaid order has been extracted hereinabove. The High Court, while granting interim relief, had taken into consideration the fact, that the appellant Sarabjit Singh had not enclosed a copy of the alleged agreement to sell. He had given no details of the agreement to sell. He did not disclose any date of the alleged agreement to sell. He did not even mention the area of land covered by the agreement, or the rate at which the land was agreed to be purchased. The High Court also noticed, that the date on which the sale was to be concluded, besides other similar issues, had also not been disclosed by the appellant Sarabjit Singh, in his complaint. While recording that the aforesaid were important ingredients for any agreement to sell, and while noticing that the same had not been disclosed by the appellant Sarabjit Singh, the High Court had stayed the proceedings before the trial Court. Despite such strong observations made by the High Court in its order dated 11.2.2002, and inspite of the fact that the same is the actual basis for all the allegations which the appellant has chosen to level against Itpal Singh (respondent No. 4 herein), Gurbinder Singh, Salamat Masih and others, the said agreement to sell has still not been placed on the record of the case, nor have the aforesaid details been furnished.
The impugned order passed by the High Court makes a specific mention of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar, wherein it was sought to be concluded, that the first information report had been registered by the appellant Sarabjit Singh only to pressurize Itpal Singh (respondent No. 4 herein), Gurbinder Singh, Salamat Masih and others. The aforesaid report was available on the record of the High Court as annexure P8. An effective determination of the present controversy, therefore, could have been made only upon a perusal of the aforesaid report. Unfortunately, the aforesaid report has not been placed on the record of the case by the appellant Sarabjit Singh. In the aforesaid view of the matter, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the appellant Sarabjit Singh, and the finding recorded by the High Court on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar, that the instant case had been registered by the appellant Sarabjit Singh only to pressurize Itpal Singh, Gurbinder Singh, Salamat Masih and others, has inevitably to be reiterated. Consequent upon the disposal of Criminal Miscellaneous no. 22198-M of 2000 vide order dated 10.1.2002 (extracted hereinabove), it seems, that the matter was placed before the Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar. The Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar also arrived at a similar conclusion, namely, that the appellant Sarabjit Singh had not been able to produce any material demonstrating the execution of the alleged agreement to sell in his favour. It has been expressly noticed by the High Court in the impugned order dated 20.11.2006, that even the Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar, in his report, upheld the earlier report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar. Even this report has not been placed on the record of the case. Herein again, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the appellant Sarabjit Singh.
From the course of our narration of the factual position as it traversed before different levels of investigation and judicial scrutiny, it emerges that the appellant Sarabjit Singh has not been able to produce any material, on the basis of which he can establish his claim. The aforesaid land was admittedly been sold by Salamat Masih to Itpal Singh and Gurbinder Singh (through two registered sale deeds dated 17.3.1997 and 4.4.1997), i.e. well before the registration of the first information report dated 10.1.1998 by the appellant Sarabjit Singh. This is surely a case of no evidence. It is a case where accusations have been levelled without supporting material. Despite a clear indication in the order passed by the High Court, such supporting material has still not been made available for perusal of this Court. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied, that in the absence of any material whatsoever to support the charges levelled by the appellant Sarabjit Singh in the first information report dated 10.1.1998, the High Court was justified in quashing the said first information report by invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
The legal document discusses the circumstances under which a First Information Report (FIR) can be quashed by a High Court under its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The key point established is that if allegations in the FIR are unsupported by any material evidence at various levels of investigation and judicial scrutiny, and if it is found to be a case of no evidence, the High Court would be justified in quashing the FIR.
In this particular case, the appellant's entire claim was based on an alleged agreement to sell land. However, crucial details such as the date of the agreement, the area of land, the sale price, and the specific terms were not disclosed or supported by any material evidence (!) (!) (!) . Despite strong observations by the High Court regarding the absence of supporting documentation, the appellant failed to furnish the agreement or relevant details even at later stages (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, reports from investigating authorities concluded that the FIR was lodged to exert pressure on other parties rather than based on substantive evidence (!) (!) (!) . The police and prosecutorial authorities found no material to substantiate the allegations, and the land transactions had already been completed prior to the FIR being lodged (!) (!) (!) (!) .
As a result, the High Court's decision to quash the FIR was justified because the allegations lacked supporting evidence and were made without factual basis. The courts emphasized that in the absence of any material to support the charges, continued proceedings would be unwarranted, and the quashing was appropriate to prevent abuse of process (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the document underscores that when allegations in an FIR are unsupported by evidence, and investigations reveal no material to substantiate the claims, the High Court is within its rights to quash the FIR under its inherent jurisdiction to prevent unnecessary harassment and misuse of legal proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Sarabjit Singh, the appellant herein, purchased 30 kanals 11 marlas of land from Salamat Masih through two deeds dated 11.2.1992 and 13.3.1992. The pleadings in the instant appeal reveal, that the aforesaid purchase made by the appellant was out of a total holding of 99 kanals (with the vendor Salamat Masih). It is not a matter of dispute, that on purchasing 30 kanals 11 marlas of land, the appellant Sarabjit Singh set up a brick kiln on the land for manufacture of bricks. Itpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein) and his brother Gurbinder Singh also purchased 61 kanals 3 marlas of land from Salamat Masih (the vendor of Sarabjit, the appellant herein). The instant purchase was made through two sale deeds dated 17.3.1997 and 4.4.1997. It is accepted by the parties, that the land purchased by Sarabjit Singh, the appellant herein, adjoins the land purchased by Itpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein) and his brother Gurbinder Singh.
3. The first litigation between the parties was initiated by Salamat Masih. He filed a civil suit on 20.4.1995 against the appellant Sarabjit Singh. The principal prayer made by Salamat Masih in the aforesaid suit was, for a direction to the appellant Sarabjit Singh, not to interfere in his land measuring 61 kanals 3 marlas. It would be pertinent to mention at this juncture, that it was the instant land which was subsequently sold by Salamat Masih to Itpal Singh and his brother Gurbinder Singh (through the said two registered sale deeds, dated 17.3.1997 and 4.4.1997). In the written statement filed by Sarabjit Singh in response to the suit filed by Salamat Masih, Sarabjit Singh admitted, that he had only purchased 32 kanals of land, out of the total land holding of Salamat Masih. Interestingly, in his written statement, Sarabjit Singh (the appellant herein) did not aver, that he had entered into an agreement to purchase any further land from Salamat Masih.
4. In the above-mentioned suit preferred by Salamat Masih, the Civil Court passed an interim order of status quo on 3.2.1998. At the time of passing of the aforesaid interim order, the land in question was already in possession of Itpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein) and his brother Gurbinder Singh. At this juncture, it is necessary to reiterate, that Itpal Singh and Gurbinder Singh had purchased the instant 61 kanals and 3 marlas of land from Salamat Masih (through the said two registered sale deeds, dated 17.3.1997 and 4.4.1997). In view of the interim order passed in the civil suit, Itpal Singh and Gurbinder Singh were not adversely affected by the dispute between Salamat Masih and the appellant Sarabjit Singh. Despite that, the appellant Sarabjit Singh assailed the order dated 3.2.1998 (passed by the Civil Court requiring the parties to the litigation to maintain status quo), before the District Judge. The District Judge vide order dated 5.5.2000, dismissed the challenge raised by the appellant Sarabjit Singh. It is not a matter of dispute, that the aforesaid order dated 5.5.2000 was not further challenged by the appellant Sarabjit Singh, and must therefore, for all intents and purposes, be deemed to have attained finality between the rival parties.
5. It is apparent from the factual position noticed hereinabove, that Salamat Masih had initiated the process of litigation between the parties by filing the said civil suit against the appellant Sarabjit Singh on 20.4.1995. About three years thereafter, the appellant Sarabjit Singh also filed a civil suit on 8.1.1998 against Salamat Masih (and others, including Itpal Singh and Gurbinder Singh), for specific performance and possession. The relief of specific performance was claimed by the appellant Sarabjit Singh on the basis of a deed dated 13.3.1992.
6. It seems, that the appellant Sarabjit Singh was on the back foot with reference to the litigation pertaining to 61 kanals 3 marlas of land purchased by Itpal Singh and Gurbinder Singh (through the said t
SupremeToday
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
