SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Sardar Ravi Inder Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.2807 Of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6769 of 2017)
Decided On : 08-07-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 406, 424 and 120-B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 362 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 403] – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – Cognizance of offence – Foundation of complaint was sale transaction of property – Allegation is that appellants failed to execute sale deeds notwithstanding agreements – In earlier criminal revision application, High Court had confirmed order dismissing application for discharge – Criminal revision application was rejected on the ground that documents relied upon by appellants regarding settlement in suit with second respondent and disposal of suit could not be considered while considering prayer for discharge – Second prayer in writ petition could have been hit by Section 362 of Cr.P.C., as prayer was to quash order on application for discharge – But first prayer was for quashing complaint itself – Dismissing first prayer in writ petition on the ground of bar of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. was erroneous – As second respondent had given up his rights under agreements, continuing complaint would be nothing but abuse of process of law – Complaint case quashed. (Paras 15, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellants invoked a remedy before High Court by filing a substantive writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing the first criminal complaint. By impugned order, High Court dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that the same contentions had been rejected in an earlier criminal revision application, which cannot be re-agitated. Therefore, there was a bar under Article 362 of the Cr.P.C.
Findings of Court:
As the second respondent had given up his rights under the agreements, it is crystal clear that continuing the complaint would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, a case was made out to quash the complaint. The High Court fell in error in refusing to do so.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay S. Oka, J.
1. Leave granted.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. In substance, the appellants' prayer in this appeal is to quash the criminal proceedings of a complaint filed by the second respondent, Ganesh Kumar Agiwal. The present appellants are the trustees of Sardar Bahadur Sir Inder Singh (Personal Estate) Trust (for short, “the Trust”). The present appellants and one Gurdev Singh, as the trustees of the said Trust, entered into two separate agreements for sale dated 29th January 2001 (for short “the agreements”) in favour of the second respondent and one Uma Shankar Agiwal. In the agreements, the second respondent and Uma Shankar were described as the partners of Sri Mahakaleshwar Enterprises (for short, “the firm”). They entered into the agreements on behalf of the firm. Uma Shankar is the real brother of the second respondent.
3. The second respondent and his brother Uma Shankar filed a suit for specific performance of the agreements against the appellants in the year 2005. On 8th May 2007, Uma Shankar filed an application in the pending suit stating that the entire advance of Rs.28,01,000/-paid by him and the second respondent has been received back from the appellants by way of a Demand Draft, and in addition, the second respondent and Uma Shankar received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-by a pay order. Therefore, Uma Shankar prayed for permission to withdraw the suit.
4. On 28th June 2007, the second respondent filed a complaint bearing C/1 Case No.1027 of 2007 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr. PC’) against the appellants and others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 424 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). The foundation of the complaint was the sale transaction of property in the form of the agreements. In the complaint, Uma Shankar was shown as the first accused, and the present appellants were shown as the second and third accused. In the complaint, the second respondent referred to the application dated 8th May 2007 for withdrawing the suit filed by Uma Shankar. He alleged that this was done without his knowledge by Uma Shankar in connivance with the appellant. He alleged that he had paid the entire advance to the appellants. The allegation is that the appellants failed to execute the sale deeds notwithstanding the agreements. Cognizance was taken by a criminal Court based on the above complaint on 19th July 2007. It must be noted here that the second respondent filed, more or less, a similar complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.PC against the appellants on 31st July 2007. The second respondent's subsequent complaint bearing Case No.1248 of 2007 was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate by the order dated 14th September 2009, in the exercise of power under Section 203 of the Cr.PC by holding that no case was made out against the appellants.
5. Uma Shankar was transposed as a defendant in the suit for specific performance, who filed a written statement contending that the entire consideration paid to the appellants with compensation for delayed payment has been returned. On 11th November 2008, the second respondent filed an application in the pending suit, contending that there was a settlement between the parties and that the second respondent has no right, title or interest in the suit properties. Therefore, he prayed for a grant of permission to withdraw the suit. By the order dated 27th November 2008, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit for specific performance as withdrawn.
6. In the first complaint bearing Case No.1027 of 2007, the appellants applied under Section 245 of the Cr.PC for discharge on the grounds of compromise. The application for discharge was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamshedpur, by the order dated 28th August 2012. The appellants preferred a criminal revision application against the order before t
Bar of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable on two distinct reliefs sought in a quashing petition.
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....
A power of attorney holder can file a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act provided they assert personal knowledge; however, enforcing a compromise via criminal proceedings is not permitted.
A second complaint on identical facts is not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances exist, as established in prior case law.
The court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings if they amount to an abuse of the process of the court or if quashing the proceedings would serve ....
A second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable if based on changed circumstances, despite a previous application being withdrawn.
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated or continued when the dispute is purely civil in nature and when there is an abuse of process of law.
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....
(1) Nothing has been done which is beyond jurisdiction and competence of the Special Court, SC/ST (POA) Act.(2) Exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in case whe....
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.