SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Dr. Sonia Verma & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(S). 1433 Of 2024, [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10570 of 2023]
Decided On : 07-03-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 506, 420, 34, 120-B and 467 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal breach of trust, cheating, conspiracy and falsification of documents – Common intention – Dispute which forms genesis of criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 is entirely civil in nature i.e., whether Appellants are in lawful possession of suit property or, in essence, whether RSD is valid – To that extent, Appellants have already taken recourse to appropriate civil remedy to establish their claim before Civil Court – Grievance of Respondent No. 2 i.e., whether RSD is forged and fabricated is an issue that will be considered by Civil Court while making its determination – Attempt has been made by Respondent No. 2 to shroud a civil dispute with a cloak of criminality – When High Court was apprised of such a matter wherein the substance of the criminal complaint served only to cast doubt on validity of a commercial transaction and appropriate civil remedy was already being pursued, High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings – Impugned Order set aside and entire criminal proceedings arising out of subject FIR quashed and set aside. (Paras 14, 15, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellants are aggrieved by Order dated 19.07.2023 whereby High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh refused to quash FIR registered against Appellants for offences under Section(s) 506, 420, 34, 120-B and 467 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
This Order shall not have any effect on the Civil Suit pending between parties and same shall be decided in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellants before us are aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in CRM-M-34512-2023 (the ‘Impugned Order’) whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh refused to quash FIR No. 375/2022 dated 31.10.2022 (the ‘Subject FIR’), registered against the Appellants for offences under Section(s) 506, 420, 34, 120-B and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the ‘IPC’).
Brief Facts:
3. The uncontested facts are as follows: (i) the Appellants are doctors who are running the Surendra Maternity and Trauma Hospital (the ‘Hospital’), located in village Suthani, Tehsil Bawal, Rewari, Haryana; (ii) the Appellants were paying rent to Respondent No. 2’s son at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month for the Hospital property until August 2022; (iii) the original owner of the land upon which the Hospital stands was Kaptan Singh i.e., husband of Respondent No. 2.
4. Thereafter, as per the Appellants version, vide registered sale deed No. 1485 dated 23.08.2022 (the ‘RSD’), the Appellants purchased the land on which the Hospital stood i.e., Khewat No. l, Khatauni No. 1, Mustkil No. 33, Killa No. 26, village Suthani, Tehsil Bawal, Rewari, Haryana (the ‘Suit Property’), for a sale consideration of Rs. 43,00,000/-, from one Sher Singh. Pursuant to this purchase, the Appellants discontinued the payment of rent to Respondent No. 2’s son.
5. Fearing dispossession from the Suit Property, the Appellants filed Civil Suit No. 294/2022 on 27.09.2022, before the Court of Addl. Civil Judge, Bawal, seeking a decree of permanent injunction against Respondent No. 2, her husband and one Babu Lal (the ‘Civil Suit’). In the Civil Suit, an order granting ad-interim injunction was passed in favour of the Appellants on 18.11.2022. While granting this protection, the Court found that the Appellants had a prima facie case as they had produced three registered sale deeds carrying similar description of the Suit Property in order to establish the chain of transfer leading to their ownership. As per the Appellants, the Suit Property was first transferred by Kaptan Singh to Babu Lal vide Sale Deed dated 20.07.2020 and thereafter from Babu Lal to Sher Singh vide Sale Deed dated 22.08.2022.
6. On 29.10.2022, FIR No. 372/2022 was registered by the Appellants against three persons, including Kaptan Singh and son of Respondent No. 2 for offences under Section(s) 506, 120-B of the IPC. The Appellants alleged that the accused persons had fraudulently collected rent from them for a prolonged period, despite lacking ownership over the Suit Property and were continuously threatening the Appellants to vacate the Suit Property.
7. Two days later, the Subject FIR was registered against the Appellants and Sher Singh by Respondent No. 2, who claimed that she was the owner in possession of the land upon which the Hospital stood, citing it as Killa No. 8, instead of Killa No. 26. Respondent No. 2 stated that the property was transferred in her favour by Kaptan Singh vide Transfer Deed dated 22.08.2017 and that she has never alienated the property. She alleged that the Appellants, in collusion with Sher Singh forged the RSD and wrongly entered the area of the property in the RSD with the intention of usurping her property.
8. A charge-sheet was filed in respect of the Subject FIR on 17.03.2023 and as on date, the Appellants have been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.
9. The Appellants then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the Subject FIR. Vide the Impugned Order, the High Court held that the allegations relate to Killa No. 8 in Mustkil No. 33, which the Appellants never claimed to have purchased. On this basis, the Court held that the ingredients of the offences alleged were made out against the Appellants and consequently, the application for quashing was dismissed.
Contentions & Analysis:
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants forcefully contends that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil
Court must guard against any Attempt made by a litigant to shroud a civil dispute with a cloak of criminality.
The court established that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offenses, allowing for quashing of FIRs when no criminal offense is disclosed.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained if they are essentially civil disputes, especially when a civil remedy is available.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when disputes between the parties constitute only civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the Courts would not permit a person to be harassed. T....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.