Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Ruchir Rastogi - Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Rastogi And Others Etc. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 3283-3284 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.8629-8630 of 2019)
Decided on : 19-10-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 457, 380 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Lurking house trespass, theft and criminal intimidation – Assets and belongings inside shop in question were in joint possession of appellant as also respondent No.1 and there was injunction granted by Competent Court that assets and belongings of shop in question would be preserved, removal of same without consent or knowledge of appellant would amount to theft – There was breaking open of locks of premises wherein property was stored for the purposes of theft – All these offences are cognizable in nature and basic ingredients being there in FIR, High Court clearly erred in quashing FIR – Whether offences are proved or not would be a subject matter of trial and before that of investigation as to whether a triable case is made out or not by investigating agency but in any case, was not a case where FIR was liable to be quashed – Defence taken by respondent if adverted to and dealt with by this Court, could cause serious prejudice to them in investigation and also trial – His participation in crime prima facie, cannot be ruled out – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Law to take its own course – Matter to proceed with respect to FIR in question in accordance with law. (Paras 11, 14, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals assail correctness of judgment and order dated 15.04.2019 passed by Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos.31343 and 31370 of 2018 (filed by respondents herein) whereby both writ petitions were allowed and First Information Report [FIR] lodged by present appellant dated 22.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0128 of 2018 under Sections 457, 380 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Pheelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar was quashed. Private respondents herein were the accused in said FIR.
Findings of Court:
Any observations made in this order are only for the purposes of deciding the issue raised and the same may not influence the investigation or the trial which shall proceed independently and be decided on the evidence adduced.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals assail the correctness of the judgment and order dated 15.04.2019 passed by Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos.31343 and 31370 of 2018 (filed by the respondents herein) whereby both the writ petitions were allowed and the First Information Report1[FIR] lodged by the present appellant dated 22.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0128 of 2018 under sections 457, 380 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[IPC], Police Station Pheelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar was quashed. The private respondents herein were the accused in the said FIR.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are as follows:
3.1 The appellant and the private respondents belong to the same family and the pedigree is as follows:
3.2 The appellant and respondent No.1 entered into a partnership as Karta of their respective HUFs and a partnership deed dated 01.04.2012 was reduced into writing. The business inherited by them was run in shop No.26/59 as a tenant. The said premises was taken on rent from its owner Ms. Urmila Gupta.
3.3 Respondent No.1 gave a legal notice dated 27.05.2013 to the appellant expressing his desire to dissolve the firm w.e.f. 01.06.2013. He also retained the keys of the shop and restricted the appellant’s entry therein.
3.4 In response, the appellant gave a legal notice dated 07.06.2013 requesting the respondent 1 to withdraw his notice dated 27.05.2013. The appellant also filed an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19963[The 1996 Act] before the District Judge, Kanpur registered as Misc. Arbitration Application No.77/70 of 2013. The District Judge passed an interim order dated 01.07.2013 directing the parties not to open the shop in the absence of the other i.e. to say that both the parties or their representative would enter the shop jointly and neither of the parties will enter the shop separately. The District Judge appointed an Advocate Commissioner to serve the notice before the next date which was fixed as 06.07.2013. The aforesaid order dated 01.07.2013 is reproduced hereunder:
| “Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act alongwith munsrim report is placed on record. It deserves to be registered. 01.07.2013 The case was called. 7ga is registered while issuing notice to the opposite parties date 06.07.2013 is fixed. Till then both the parties or their representatives will enter the shop in dispute jointly. No party or its representatives will enter the shop separately. 11ga application for appointment of special messenger or advocate Commissioner is accepted Shri Prabhat Sharma Advocate is appointed as advocate Commissioner who will go to the place and serve the notice on the opposite party and before the date will file their report. The plaintiff will pay Rs.700 as fee to the advocate Commissioner and will also pay the expenses of 100 too and from. | ||
| Sd/- District Judge Kanpur Nagar” | ||
3.5 On 02.08.2013, Arbitrators were appointed to sort out the differences between the partners i.e. appellant and respondent No.1 of the firm M/s Lala Jugal Kishore and sons at Kanpur. Before the District Judge, Kanpur, respondents appeared and filed their objections in the proceedings under section 9 of 1996 Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the material on record, the District Judge, Kanpur passed a detailed order dated 11.11.2013 disposing of the said application. The findings recorded were that the appellant had a prima facie case, there was a balance of convenience and also irreparable loss could be caused in case injunction is not granted. The District Judge accordingly directed that the entire assets and belongings of the firm M/s Lala Jugal Kishore and Sons at premises No.26/59, Birhana
SupremeToday
Cognizable offences cannot be quashed at threshold without trial.
FIR quashed as allegations fail prima facie to constitute Sections 451,447,506 IPC offences in civil property possession dispute lacking trespass intent and intimidation alarm, preventing abuse of pr....
The main legal point established is that a bona fide claim of right or title can protect a person from being convicted of criminal trespass, even if the claim is ill-founded in law.
Criminal jurisdiction is restricted to the area where the offence occurred, and parties cannot confer jurisdiction through a contract; thus, allegations of fraud in a lease agreement without evidence....
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
