Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
B.R. Gavai, Krishna Murari, JJ.
BABU VENKATESH AND OTHERS - APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENT(S)
Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2022 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2183 of 2021] with Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2022 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2182 of 2021]; Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 2022 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2162 of 2021] and Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2022 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2217 of 2021]
Decided on : 18-02-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 156(3) and 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 464, 465, 468 and 120B – Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – Direction for Police investigation – Though civil suits have been filed with regard to same transactions and though they are contested by respondent No. 2 by filing written statement, he has chosen to file complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. after a period of one and half years from date of filing of written statement with an ulterior motive of harassing appellants – Stage has come where applications under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by complainant who seeks invocation of jurisdiction of Magistrate – In an appropriate case, Magistrate would be well advised to verify truth and also verify veracity of allegations – Applications under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. are filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility only to harass certain persons – When complaint was not supported by an affidavit, Magistrate ought not to have entertained application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. – Continuation of present proceedings would amount to nothing but abuse of process of law – Judgments and orders of High Court set aside. (Paras 22, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge the four judgments and orders dated 22nd January 2021, passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, thereby dismissing the criminal petitions filed by the present appellants under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of Court:
FIR Nos. 255/2019, 256/2019 filed on 16th December, 2019, FIR No. 257/2019 filed on 17th December, 2019 and FIR No. 258/2019 filed on 18th December, 2019 registered with Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City are quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Supreme Court of India reviewed the legality of proceedings initiated under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in the context of allegations of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy related to property transactions and agreements for sale (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that applications under Section 156(3) must be supported by a sworn affidavit from the complainant, ensuring responsibility and veracity of the allegations. Filing such applications in a routine manner without this support can constitute an abuse of process (!) (!) (!) .
The Court highlighted that prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. are necessary before approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3), to establish a proper jurisdictional basis and responsibility (!) (!) (!) .
It was noted that the Magistrate's failure to verify the truth or veracity of allegations, especially when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, undermines the legality of the proceedings (!) (!) .
The Court identified that the filing of complaints after a significant delay, especially when civil suits concerning the same transactions are pending, indicates an ulterior motive to harass the accused, which falls under a recognized category of abuse of process (!) (!) .
The Court reaffirmed that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of law or be manifestly unjust (!) (!) .
Based on these principles, the Court set aside the judgments of the High Court that dismissed the criminal petitions and upheld the quashing of the FIRs, thereby concluding that the proceedings were initiated improperly and amounted to an abuse of process (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the continuation of proceedings without proper verification and support could result in unnecessary harassment, and hence, such proceedings should be halted to prevent misuse of judicial processes (!) (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case?
JUDGMENT
B.R. Gavai, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeals challenge the four judgments and orders dated 22nd January 2021, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, thereby dismissing the criminal petitions filed by the present appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.).
3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals, taken from the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2183 of 2021, are as under:
4. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 on one hand and respondent No. 2 on the other hand, entered into various Agreements for Sale with respect to properties situated at Bangalore. According to the appellants, the amounts as mentioned in the agreements, were paid by them as consideration by three cheques, one of them drawn from the account of appellant No. 1, another one from account of M/s. S.S.R. V Trans Solutions and other one from the account of M/s. Shobha Tours and Travels, which are operated by appellant No. 1. All these three cheques were bearer cheques. It is the case of appellants that, all the cheques were encashed by the respondent No. 2.
5. It is the case of the appellants that, after receipt of the payments, the respondent No. 2 was avoiding to get the Sale-deed registered. As such, the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 on 24th November, 2017 had filed four different suits being O.S. No. 8020/2017, 8018/2017, 1616/2017 and 1614/2017, before the Courts of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Principal City Civil Judge at Bangalore, for specific performance of contract. The respondent No. 2, who is the defendant No. 1 in O.S. No. 8020/2017, filed his written statement on 09th April 2018.
6. The respondent No. 2, thereafter filed a complaint dated 10th September 2019, with Tilak Nagar Police Station, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, against the appellants, thereby making allegations of cheating. Thereafter, following a gap of almost one year, the respondent No. 2 filed Private Complaint being P.C.R. No. 12445/2019 on 18th September 2019, before the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
7. On the same day, the respondent No. 2, along with his wife who is the respondent No. 3 in the rest of the appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 2182/2021, 2162/2021, and 2217/2021, filed three other Private Complaints being P.C.R. Nos. 12441/2019, 12443/2019 and 12444/2019 before the same court.
8. The allegations in the complaints are basically that the appellant No. 1, who is the son of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, had obtained blank stamp papers from the respondents and created Agreements for Sale by misusing the said blank stamp papers. As such, it is case of the respondents that, the appellants committed forgery and cheated them, and as such they are liable for punishment for offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
9. The II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bangalore on 6th December 2019, passed the order as under:
10. On the basis of the same, a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as FIR) No. 258/2019 came to be registered at Jayanagar Police Station Bengaluru City on 18th December 2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 471, 468, 465, of the IPC. Three similar FIRs came to registered against the appellants on different dates
The court ruled that criminal proceedings based on civil disputes without clear fraudulent intent are an abuse of process, necessitating dismissal of such charges.
The court emphasized that successive FIRs regarding the same incident are impermissible and quashed the FIR based on concealment of previous complaints and forum shopping, affirming the requirement o....
The Magistrate must provide reasons for ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and failure to do so warrants quashing of the proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court, especially in the presence of pending....
Point of Law : Allegations made in complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence and those allegations have found support in statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. on the basi....
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
