Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. – Appellant(s)
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)Department of Home and Anr. – Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1395 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3730 of 2016]
Decided On : 15-11-2018
(2011) 7 SCC 59; (2000) 2 SCC 636; (2013) 10 SCC 591 – Relied upon
(2008) 8 SCC 765 – Referred
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 405 – Appellant entering into agreement with respondent for development of his own property – Appellant thereafter transferring the property to his wife – Not a criminal breach of trust. (Para 18)
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 406 – Development agreement – Respondent paying one crore to appellant as interest free deposit – To be refunded simultaneously on handing over of possession of the area of the owner’s share to appellant – Handing over of possession of owner’s share not occurring – Contract being frustrated – Appellant terminating contract – Retaining the deposit amount – Respondent having part possession – Respondent not demanding refund at any point of time – Held, no case u/s 406 made out – At best it could be a civil dispute – Respondent not making any effort for recovery of the deposit except the present criminal complaint – Mala fide and unsustainable – Held, High Court ought to allow the petition u/s 482 – FIR and charge sheet quashed. (Para 23, 24, 25, 27, 28)
(2006) 6 SCC 736; (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335; (1977) 2 SCC 699 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant-accused against whom a FIR was lodged on 20.08.2014, in respect of disputes arising out of the agreement dated 03.06.1993 for development of appellant’s property entered into between the Appellant No.1 i.e. Mr. Anand Kumar Mohatta and the complainant i.e. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. The FIR was lodged about 21 years after the agreement.
On 14.03.2011, the Appellant No.1 wrote a letter stating that he does not wish to develop the property. The Appellants did not take any further action neither did they return the amount advanced by the Respondent No.2.
Since the Appellant had declined all alternate offers made by the complainant but ostensibly on the ground that this security amount of Rs. One crore had not been refunded, Respondent No.2 lodged an FIR on 20.08.2014 against the Appellants for offence under Section 406 of IPC.
The Appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C seeking to quash FIR dated 20.08.2014.
The High Court disposed of the Appellants’ petition under Section 482 on the ground that the petition has been filed pre-maturely as the case is still at the stage of investigation. Appellants thereafter preferred the present appeal by way of Special Leave Petition.
Respondent No.1 carried out investigation and has filed a report under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. Since, the police have now submitted a charge sheet, Appellants have additionally filed amendment application seeking to incorporate prayer for quashing of charge sheet in addition to prayer for quashing of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
High Court ought to allow the petition u/s 482.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - Filing of charge sheet in the meantime is no impediment to quashing an FIR. (!) - The deposit retention dispute in a development agreement is not established as criminal breach of trust; appears civil in nature. (!) (!) (!) - Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be used to quash FIR/charge sheet to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice; applicable even when a case involves later charges or investigation. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The FIR and charge sheet were quashed due to mala fide and abuse of process, with the Court noting civil nature of dispute and failure to pursue civil remedy. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The essential elements of criminal breach of trust require entrustment of property and dishonest use or misappropriation; in this case, the court found no element of entrustment since the deposit related to developer’s own property and not entrusted by respondent. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
S.A. BOBDE, J.
Leave granted.
2. This Criminal Appeal is filed by Appellants challenging the final judgment and order dated 02.02.2016 of the High Court of Delhi. The High Court vide the above dated final judgment and order dismissed the petition filed by the Appellants under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and refused to quash FIR No.0139/2014 dated 20.08.2014. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, Respondent No.1 filed charge sheet dated 03.08.2018 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, Delhi against the Appellants herein. Thus, by way of amendment to the main prayer in the appeal, Appellants have also prayed for quashing of charge sheet dated 03.08.2018. Appellants seek quashing of the FIR dated 20.08.2014 and the charge sheet dated 03.08.2018.
Facts
3. This appeal is by an accused against whom a FIR was lodged on 20.08.2014, in respect of disputes arising out of the agreement dated 03.06.1993 entered into between the Appellant No.1 i.e. Mr. Anand Kumar Mohatta and the complainant i.e. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. The FIR was lodged about 21 years after the agreement. Initially, the FIR was also lodged against the wife of the Appellant No.1 i.e. Mrs. Shobha Anand Mohatta, but no offence has been made out against her after investigation.
4. The agreement entered into by the two parties is with regard to the development of the property owned by the Appellants. This property is situated at 20, Feroz Shah Road, New Delhi, which falls under Lutyens Zone. The property was initially owned by the Appellant No.1 and later on ownership of the property was transferred to Appellant No.2 i.e. wife of Appellant No.1. Desirous of developing the property, the Appellant No.1 entered into a development agreement dated 03.06.1993 with Respondent No.2 M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. The parties agreed to develop the said property by constructing a high-rise building comprising of flats. Respondent No.2 paid a sum of Rs. One crore as contemplated by clause 38 of the agreement. The agreement could not be fulfilled as the new building regulations which were introduced prohibited the construction of high-rise building in the Lutyens Bungalow Zone, where the property is situated. (See New Delhi Municipal Council v. Tanvi Trading and Credit Private Limited), 2008 (8) SCC 765.
5. Thereafter, on 14.03.2011, the Appellant No.1 wrote a letter stating that he does not wish to develop the property. The Appellants did not take any further action neither did they return the amount advanced by the Respondent No.2.
6. Apparently, since the Appellant had declined all alternate offers made by the complainant but ostensibly on the ground that this security amount of Rs. One crore had not been refunded, Respondent No.2 on 19.11.2011 filed a Criminal Complaint before the SHO, Police Station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi complaining of offences under Section 406 and 420 followed by a complaint dated 10.09.2012 with the Additional Commissioner of Police. On refusal of police authorities to register FIR against the Appellants, the Respondent-complainant invoked powers of the Court under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P.C on 03.11.2012. Thereafter, on 11.11.2013 Respondent No. 2 withdrew the complaint filed under Section 156 (3). The FIR with which we are concerned was lodged on 20.08.2014 against the Appellants for offence under Section 406 of IPC on a fresh complaint filed by the Respondent No.2.
7. Following which, the Appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C seeking to quash FIR dated 20.08.2014. According to the Appellants, the FIR was completely untenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mainly, the amount of Rs. One crore was rightfully retained by them and there was no question of such retention constituting a criminal breach of trust. Moreover, assuming that the Respondent No. 2 had a grievance only about the retention of money, the redressal ought to have
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
