Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Ramesh Chandra Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & ORS. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S).2060 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).39 of 2022) With Criminal Appeal No(S). OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).4813 of 2022) Criminal Appeal No(S). OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).7052 of 2022)
Decided On : 28-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447, 386 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating, forgery and extortion – Criminal trespass and criminal intimidation – Quashing application – Matter concerning sale of property – High Court under impugned judgment has even failed to examine as to what was complaint and how present appellants are, in any manner, concerned with so-called alleged commission of crime, but after recording superficial observations regarding scope of interference under Section 482, Cr.P.C. dismissed petition under order impugned – Complaint on the basis of which FIR came to be registered at instance of de-facto complainant/second respondent does not disclose any act of present appellants or their participation in commission of crime – It is not the case of complainant that either appellants have played any active/passive role either in scribing document or are facilitators or witness to document in reference to which complaint has been made for cheating and committing forgery or have played any role in delivery of possession of subject property in question – De-facto complainant has implicated present appellants being members of family to put pressure for obtaining possession of subject property and to settle civil dispute – High Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint and proceedings in consequence thereof qua present appellants – Judgment impugned of High Court set aside and FIR and all consequential proceedings qua appellants quashed. (Paras 14, 18, 19, 20 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeals have been filed against Judgment dated 3rd February, 2021 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing criminal miscellaneous application filed at instance of present appellants. De-facto complainant/second respondent had a grievance that he was dispossessed from the subject property in question in reference to which a complaint dated 29th January, 2019 was made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the concerned Magistrate. As a consequence of the aforesaid, an FIR dated 2nd April, 2019 came to be registered as Case Crime No.183 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447, 386, In the FIR, four persons were specifically named.
Findings of Court:
Observations which has been made are restricted to the three appellants before this Court and trial Judge may not be influenced by observations made here and may proceed with Criminal Case qua other accused persons independently on its own merits in accordance with law.
Result : Appeals allowed. Criminal Proceedings quashed.
JUDGMENT
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 3rd February, 2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the criminal miscellaneous application filed at the instance of the present appellants.
3. The dispute relates to House No.189, Mohalla Madia, Kanpur Road, Jhansi, which as per the complainant, was purchased in the name of Shravan Kumar Gupta, who was minor at that time, by means of a registered sale deed dated 4th May, 1977 and through the ostensible owner, the de-facto complainant purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 22nd December, 2018, but prior thereto, a family settlement took place in the family comprising of Ram Kumari, widow of Raja Ram Gupta and her four sons, namely, Ramesh Chandra Gupta, Ashok Kumar, Shravan Kumar and Vinod Kumar and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the parties on 19th August, 2006 and in terms of the aforesaid MOU, the house came in the share of Vinod Kumar Gupta and while the Original Suit No.91 of 2015 filed at the instance of Vinod Kumar Gupta was pending adjudication, the ostensible owner Shravan Kumar Gupta executed a registered sale deed dated 22nd December, 2018 in favour of the de-facto complainant and according to the informant/second respondent, who is the vendee of the aforementioned registered sale deed, possession by title in favour of Shravan Kumar Gupta over the house in dispute came to be transferred in his favour and possession of the same was also handed over to him(de-facto complainant).
4. The de-facto complainant/second respondent, Atul Shukla, had a grievance that he was dispossessed from the subject property in question in reference to which a complaint dated 29th January, 2019 was made under Section 156(3) CrPC with the concerned Magistrate. As a consequence of the aforesaid, an FIR dated 2nd April, 2019 came to be registered as Case Crime No.183 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447, 386 IPC, P.S. Navabad, District Jhansi. In the aforesaid FIR, four persons were specifically named, viz. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Ashish Gupta, Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Rinky Sarna.
5. The complaint on which FIR was registered is reproduced hereunder:
“The Police Inspector, Navabad Jhansi Subject:
Regarding put up a lock of the house of the applicant and after grabbing the same demanding of Rs. 20 Lakhs and regarding recovery of the possession and lodge an FIR. Sir, the applicant Atul Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop Shukla R/o House No. 110, Kailash Residency Nvabada Jhansi UP India has sold the said a house situated at Mohlla Madia, Kachari Choraha, Navabad Jhansi, from Shrawan Kumar Gupta S/o Raja Ram Gupta and the applicant was in possession of the same and this house was purchased by Shrawan Kumar Gupta S/o Raja Ram Gupta vide a registered sale deed on 04.05.1977 from Mantra Devi and the house tax of the same is being deposited continuously by Shrawan Kumar in the Municipality. The real brother of Shrawan Kumar namely Vinod Kumar S/o Raja ram Gupta R/o House No.168 Mohlla Madia, Kachari Choraha, Navabad Jhansi and his house is touched with my house. In the night my house was locked from the inside by a channel gate and grabbed my property by Vinod Kumar. When on 15.02.2019 at 2 pm I entered in the house then in the house Vinod Kumar, his nephew Ashish Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar and Ramesh Chandra Gupta S/o Raja Ram were sitting in the house and I was thrown by them by pushing and used the filthy language and stated that if you come inside the home we will kill you. He said that I have to take Rs.20 Lakhs from you and since then Vinod Kumar has prepared the forge documents of the said house and has been let out by Vinod to Rinki Sarna alias Sardar Ravinder Singh who is well known Gunda of when I started to go from there when Rinki Sarna alias Sardar Ravinder Singh R/o House No.420, 97114 Civil Line behind Talkies, Navabad Jhansi UP started saying that this house has been
High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to conclusion that allowing proceeding to continue would be abuse of process of Court or that ends of justice require that proceeding ought to....
(1) A bonafide criminal case cannot be stifled at threshold by High Court.(2) In order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, High Court cannot act l....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent jurisdiction of the court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of la....
High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to accused, would save preci....
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
