The judgment established the legal principle that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal liability, and the availability of civil remedies is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings. It also emphasized the mutually exclusive nature of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 405 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the judgment highlighted the limitations on exercising inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the petition is filed in the nature of the second revision.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 16.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(1), Shimla, vide which the revision filed by the petitioner (complainant before learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 120B of IPC. It was asserted that the complainant is an uneducated and illiterate person. She is the owner of the land in Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, which was inherited by her from her father. She is married in a different village and is unable to manage the land. Hence, she executed a power of attorney in favour of accused no.1 authorizing him to manage her land. The accused no. 1 taking advantage of the absence of the complainant, executed a Gift Deed in favour of his wife, accused no. 2. This gift deed was executed without the consent, knowledge or authority of the complainant. The complainant never authorized accused no. 1 to execute a gift deed of her land and the gift deed is null and void qua the rights of the complainant. The accused no. 1 misused his position and executed the gift deed to benefit the accused no. 2. Hence, the complaint was filed for taking action against the accused.

3. The learned Trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant and called for the report under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The learned Trial court held that the suit regarding the execution of the Gift Deed is pending before the High Court. The Power of Attorney conferred unrestricted authority upon the holder. The complaint was premature because the issue was yet to be determined in the Civil Suit filed by the complainant; hence, the complaint was dismissed.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant filed a revision, which was decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla held that a Civil Suit was pending between the parties to determine the legality of the gift deed. The dispute was civil. There was no restriction in the gift deed and the learned Trial Court had rightly dismissed the complaint.

5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Revisional Court, the present petition has been filed asserting that the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Revisional Court are against the law and the facts. It was wrongly held that the matter was civil and the complaint could not be adjudicated during the pendency of the civil suit. The complaint was regarding the commission of the offence and had nothing to do with the pending civil suit. Learned Courts below erred in holding that no restriction was provided in the General Power of Attorney. The rule of ejusdem generis applies while construing the document and the power of gift could not have been inferred by the fair reading of the General Power of Attorney. The offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 120B of IPC were made out and learned Courts erred in dismissing the complaint.

6. I have heard Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Hitesh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents/accused.

7. Mr Peeyush Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the complaint. No specific power of executing a gift deed was conferred in the General Power of Attorney and the learned Courts below erred in holding that there was no restriction on the holder of the General Power of Attorney. It was also wrongly held that the matter involved a civil disp