1. Forgery of Power of Attorney for land transfer leading to registration of sale deed and subsequent criminal prosecution under the Indian Penal Code. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 132
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Navin Kumar Rai – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Singh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 890-891 of 2024, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 5531-5532 of 2022
Decided On : 14-02-2024
Advocates appeared:
For Appellant(s) Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ruchit Mohan, Adv. Mr. Priyadarshi Kumar, Adv. Ms. Mini Kishore, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Akhil Anand, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv
For Appellant(s) Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ruchit Mohan, Adv. Mr. Priyadarshi Kumar, Adv. Ms. Mini Kishore, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Akhil Anand, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv
IMPORTANT POINT
While exercising such inherent powers what is required to be examined is only prima facie existence of offence sought to be quashed.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 – Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 82 and 83 – Cheating and forgery – FIRs quashed by High Court – Communication resulting in registration of FIR was that of a competent authority i.e., Sub-Registrar of concerned district – In any event, such a power is result of an action only in reference to and in connection with the Act and not general provisions of IPC in relation to other penal provisions for which FIR actually stood registered – While exercising such inherent powers what is required to be examined is only prima facie existence of offence sought to be quashed – Premise on which Court proceeded in quashing FIR is on wrong assumption, interpretation, and application of law – Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in attending facts and circumstances, was unjustified and entirely unsustainable – FIR and consequent case, quashed vide impugned judgment stand restored to file of concerned district Court – All consequential steps may follow including Trial Court commencing proceedings as per law. (Paras 6, 10, 11 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal(s) call into question correctness of a common judgment and order dated 24th March 2022 passed by High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in W.P(s)(Crl.) Nos. 02 of 2021 and 47 of 2021, by which High Court quashed Giridih(T) P.S. Case No.217 of 2020 @ FIR No.04797769 dated 5th November, 2020, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is directed to appear before Court on 01.03.2024 at 10.00 a.m. Once such presence is registered with Court and proceedings begin, we direct trial to be expedited and, if not inconvenient and otherwise, possibly conduct the same on a day-to-day basis, minimizing adjournments so as to ensure that proceedings are taken to lawful conclusion at the earliest.
Result : Criminal Appeals allowed.
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.482
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.420, S.467, S.468, S.471
REGISTRATION ACT: S.82, S.83
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.420, S.467, S.468, S.471
REGISTRATION ACT: S.82, S.83
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether criminal proceedings are maintainable despite pending civil suits and whether the FIR was lodged by a competent authority under the Registration Act. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 )
3. Criminal prosecution is independent of administrative cancellation of documents; the High Court failed to analyze the prima facie existence of criminality before quashing the FIR. (Para 6 , 8 , 11 , 12 )
4. Civil proceedings do not bar criminal prosecution for forgery and cheating; the prima facie existence of an offence must be examined before quashing an FIR. (Para 8 , 11 )
5. Appeals allowed; High Court order quashing the FIR set aside and criminal proceedings restored to the trial court. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. Does the pendency of a civil suit bar criminal proceedings for the same cause of action?
No. The power to set in motion the criminal machinery is independent and distinct from administrative actions like the cancellation of registration or civil proceedings for declaring a transaction null and void. (Para 8 )
7. What is the standard for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC?
The court must examine the prima facie existence of the offence. Quashing is only justified if well-established grounds are met, and the court must specifically analyze why criminality is absent. (Para 11 )
8. Who is authorized to commence prosecution for offences under the Registration Act, 1908?
Under Sections 82 and 83, prosecution may be commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector-General, the Registrar, or the Sub-Registrar in whose territory the offence was committed. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals call into question the correctness of a common judgment and order dated 24th March 2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in W.P. (S) (Crl.) Nos. 02 of 2021 and 47 of 2021, by which the High Court quashed Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 217 of 2020 @ FIR No. 04797769 dated 5th November, 2020, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 [IPC for short] pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.
Brief Background
3. One Purushotam Kumar (A-1) forged a Power of Attorney2 [PoA] on the basis of which transfer of certain land in favour of Bikash Kumar Singh, S/o Surendra Singh (A-2), Surendra Singh (A-3) with the latter witnessing the sale transaction stood registered with the Registrar having competent jurisdiction at a place known as Giridih. The original owner Naveen Kumar Rai, having learnt of such an illegal transaction instituted proceedings before a Civil Court seeking a declaration of the transaction to be null and void. Independently, the District Deputy Registrar, Giridih initiated an inquiry in terms of Circular No. 15/R (Miscellaneous) Public Applications-04/163 [‘Circular’] dated Nil resulting in the passing of an order, prima facie holding A-1 to have forged the PoA impersonating Naveen Kumar Rai, leading to the execution of a sale deed which document also stood registered with the very same Authority. Resultantly, on the basis of such an inquiry both the documents i.e. the PoA and the sale deed stood cancelled. Further, on the basis of the communication dated 15th October, 2020 that of the District Deputy Registrar, Giridih, FIR bearing the above-noted particulars stood registered by Sahdeo Mehra, against seven accused persons including A-1, A-2 and A-3.
4. Assailing the said action of initiation of criminal proceedings, the accused persons preferred separate writ petitions titled Surendra Singh and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others and Purushotam Rai @ Purushotam Kumar Rai @ Purushotom Kumar Rai vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, which stood disposed of vide the judgment impugned before us.
5. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows the FIRs to have been quashed on the following counts:
(a) The original owner had already initiated civil proceedings.
(b) No act of “criminality” can be said to be “made out.”
(c) Initiation of criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of Court (“perhaps meant as law”).
(d) The alleged action “appears” to be “a civil wrong” in relation to which “with respect to the same cause of action” the title suit is pending.
(e) For ready reference the operative portion of the judgment is extracted as under:
“.....However, in case, if it finds that the criminality is not made out and the criminal prosecution has been initiated, it will amount to an abuse of the process of Court. For the same cause of action and for cancellation of the sale deed as well as the power of attorney, the Title Suit has already been filed earlier by the intervener. It is well settled that any registered document can be annulled by way of filing the civil suit, which is not in the domain of the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the sale deed. Thus, it appears that for a civil wrong, the criminal case has been initiated against the petitioners and for the same cause of action, the title suit is pending.
In view of the above facts and reasoned analysis, the Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 217 of 2020 for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, is hereby, quashed....”
6. In our considered view, the premise on which the Court proceeded in quashing the FIR is on the wrong assumption, interpretation, and application of the law.
7. It is argued before us that the Circular stands quashed vide Judgment dated 11th January, 2024 in W.P. (C) No. 3103 of 2020 titled as Vinod Shankar Jha @ Binod S
