Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 312

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Shilpa Jain & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(S). 1565-1567 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 8829-8831 of 2016]
Decided On : 05-04-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Mirza Kayesh Begg, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Argha Roy, Adv. Ms. Ojaswini Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ruby, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Mrs. Christi Jain, Adv. Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv. Ms. Lisha Bhati, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Revenue records are not documents of title – Questions of title can only be determined by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) A civil dispute may metamorphose into a criminal dispute.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – Land dispute between parties – Revenue records are not documents of title nor would any findings pursuant to revenue proceedings under the Code confer any rights, title or interest upon Respondents in relation to Suit Property – Questions of title can only be determined by a civil court of competent jurisdiction – Genesis of present dispute emanates from civil proceedings qua possession of suit property – However, dispute in its current avatar as is discernible from allegation levelled against Respondents in FIR, has certainly undergone a metamorphose into a criminal dispute which ought not to have been scuttled at the threshold and ought to have been considered on its own merits, in accordance with law – Impugned Order passed by High Court set aside – Appellant State of Madhya Pradesh directed to proceed in accordance with law in relation to FIR. (Paras 7, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise out of a common order dated 14.01.2016 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereunder High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure quashed First Information Report registered under Section(s) 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and criminal proceedings emanating thereof.
Findings of Court:
Observations made in this judgement are relevant for the purpose of testing the correctness of Impugned Order. None of observations made here shall have any bearing on the consequential criminal proceedings (if any).
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

Introduction

1. The present appeals arise out of a common order dated 14.01.2016 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (the “High Court”) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case bearing numbers (i) 6972 of 2015; (ii) 6981 of 2015; and (iii) 7663 of 2015, whereunder the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”) quashed (i) a First Information Report bearing number 551 of 2015 dated 25.07.2015 registered at PS Khategaon, Dewas (the “FIR”) under Section(s) 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 (the “IPC”); and (ii) the criminal proceedings emanating thereof (the “Impugned Order”).

Factual Background

2. The facts and proceedings germane for contextual understanding of the present lis, are as follows:

Original Plaintiff

Suit Property

Trial Court

Civil Suit

Underlying Decree

2.2. Thereafter, an appeal i.e., First Appeal No. 102 of 1991 was preferred by the Original Plaintiff before the High Court (the “Appeal”). Vide an order dated 07.04.1998, the High Court upheld the Underlying Decree and held that the Suit Property was constructed on land originally vested in the erstwhile Holkar State which subsequently came to be recorded in the revenue records as nazul land belonging to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh (the “Underlying Order”). Pertinently, the Underlying Order was assailed before a Division Bench of the High Court by way of Letter Patent Appeal (“LPA”) No. 357 of 2005, however vide an order dated 07.09.2005, the aforesaid LPA came to be dismissed.

2.3. The dispute between the parties seemingly attained finality, however, pursuant to a complaint received on 17.02.2015, an investigation was carried out by the Tehsildar, Khategaon, whereunder it was revealed that 11 (eleven) sale transactions had been carried out by private persons in respect of the Suit Property i.e., nazul land belonging to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. Notably, the investigation also revealed that the aforesaid transactions were carried out fraudulently i.e., (i) without the requisite documentation and / or on the basis of forged and fabricated documentation; (ii) on the basis of an erroneous certificate dated 21.06.2010 issued by the Original Plaintiff; and (iii) in connivance with certain identified government officials. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, a complaint dated 25.07.2015 came to be furnished by the Tehsildar, Khategaon to the investigating agencies (the “Complaint”).

2.4. In furtherance of the Complaint, the FIR came to be registered by the investigating agencies against 22 (twenty-two) persons including inter alia the Respondents. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, application(s) came to be preferred under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR (the “Quashing Petition”). Vide the Impugned Order, the High Court quashed the FIR and the proceeding(s) emanating thereof. The operative paragraph(s) of the Impugned Order are reproduced as under :

“05. Considering the above submissions and the evidence on record in the form of the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court that the respondent-state has been unable to prove its title. The suit as well as the appeal have been dismissed and in this light filing of criminal proceedings as alleged by the Counsel for the petitioners is noth