No – Quash Sec.482 Cr.P.C. – Section 420/120B IPC – High court misapplied the law and quashed the FIR – Having no title, the accused induced the complainant and extracted a sum of Rs. 5,00,001/- from the complainant with an intention not to transfer the land infavour of complainant – Apex court held that The averments in the complaint would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authority.The High Court has adopted a strictly hypertechnical approach and such an endeavour may be justified during a trial, but certainly not during the stage of investigation. At any rate it is too premature a stage for the High Court to step in and stall the investigation by declaring that it is a civil transaction wherein no
semblance of criminal offence is involved. The appellant, is therefore right in contending that the First Information Report should not have been quashed in this case and the investigation should have been allowed to proceed. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.=
Yet again in Mahesh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan (2009)
4 SCC 443) this Court stated the law thus :
“11. The principle providing for exercise of the power by
a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding is well known. The
Court shall ordinarily exercise the said jurisdiction, inter
alia, in the event the allegations contained in the FIR or the
complaint petition even if on face value are taken to be
correct in their entirety, does not disclose commission of an
offence.”
7. In the present case the complaint does make averments so as to
infer fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been made by
Respondent No.1 herein and accused No.2 pursuant to which the
appellant parted with money. It is the case of the appellant that
Respondent No.2 does not have title over the property since the
settlement deed was not a registered one and Respondent No.1 herein
and accused No.2 had entered into criminal conspiracy and they
fraudulently induced the appellant to deliver a sum of Rs.5,00,001/-
with no intention to complete the sale deal. The averments in the
complaint would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the
authority.
9. The High Court has adopted a strictly hypertechnical approach
and such an endeavour may be justified during a trial, but certainly
not during the stage of investigation. At any rate it is too
premature a stage for the High Court to step in and stall the
investigation by declaring that it is a civil transaction wherein no
semblance of criminal offence is involved.
10. The appellant, is therefore right in contending that the First
Information Report should not have been quashed in this case and the
investigation should have been allowed to proceed.
11. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned
order.
2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41537
T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1168 OF 2014
[ Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5529 OF 2011]
Mosiruddin Munshi … Appellant(s)
versus
Md. Siraj and another …
Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. Leave granted. CRMP No.12896 of 2011 seeking impleadment as a
party is dismissed.
2. This appeal is preferred against order dated June 29, 2010,
passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRR No.1978 of 2006 in FIR No.251
dated 10.11.2005 on the file of Amherst Street Police Station registered
for the alleged offences under Section 420/120B IPC including the order
dated 28.10.2005 in case No.C/949 of 2005 passed by the Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
3. Briefly the facts are as follows : The appellant herein/
complainant was looking for a plot of land for construction of
residential house in January 2005 and accused No.2, Masud Alam, a public
servant represented that he could arrange for the said plot and
introduced the appellant to respondent No.1/accused No.1 who stated that
he had a plot of land and the appellant believing the representation made
by the accused No.2 entered into an agreement for sale with respondent
No.1 herein/accused No.1 and also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,001/- in cash.
The respondent No.1 herein refused to hand over the necessary title
documents to the appellant which led to issuance of legal notice by the
appellant. All other methods to compel respondent No.1 to complete the
sale having failed the appellant filed a complaint on 28.10.2005 in
the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against
respondent No.1 herein/accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the offences
punishable under Section 420, read with Section 120B of the IPC. The
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the
officer in-charge of the Amherst Street Police Station for causing
investigation under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code by treating
the complaint as First Information Report. Respondent No.1
herein/accused No.1 filed application under Section 482 of Cr.PC for
quashing the said proceedings including the FIR. Though the appellant
herein/complainant was impleaded as a party no attempt was made to serve
notice on him with the result that the learned single Judge of the High
Court quashed the complaint proceedings in the absence of the appellant
herein. Challenging the said order the appellant herein preferred appeal
to this Court in Criminal Appeal No.852 of 2008 and this Court by
judgment dated May 09, 2008 allowed the appeal and remitted the case to
the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Thereafter
the High Court heard both the parties and by impugned order dated June,
29, 2010 allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quashed
the complaint proceedings. Aggrieved by the same the complainant has
preferred the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
contents of the complaint would disclose the commission of the
cognizable offences alleged and the High Court at the preliminary stage
would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry and quashing the
proceedings and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per
contra the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/accused No.1 contended
that the dispute involved in the complaint is of civil nature and none of
the acts allegedly committed by the Respondent No.1 gave rise to any
criminal liability as rightly held by the High Court. In support of the
submission he relied on the following decisions of this Court in Hridaya
Ranjan Prasad Verma and others Vs. State of Bihar and another (2000) 4
SCC 168, Murari Lal Gupta Vs. Gopi Singh (2005) 13 SCC 699 and Ram
Biraji Devi and another Vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and another (2006) 6 SCC
669.
5. The legal position with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by
the High Court for quashing the First Information Report is now well
settled. It is not necessary for us to delve deep thereinto as the
propositions of law have been stated by this Court in R. Kalyani Vs.
Janak C. Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516 in the following terms :
“15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are :
1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent
jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in
particular, a first information report unless the
allegations contained therein, even if given face value and
taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no
cognizable offence.
2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very
exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document
relied upon by the defence.
3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the
allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an
offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass
an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any
mens rea or actus reus.
4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by
itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal
proceedings should not be allowed to continue.
6. Yet again in Mahesh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan (2009)
4 SCC 443) this Court stated the law thus :
“11. The principle providing for exercise of the power by
a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding is well known. The
Court shall ordinarily exercise the said jurisdiction, inter
alia, in the event the allegations contained in the FIR or the
complaint petition even if on face value are taken to be
correct in their entirety, does not disclose commission of an
offence.”
7. In the present case the complaint does make averments so as to
infer fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been made by
Respondent No.1 herein and accused No.2 pursuant to which the
appellant parted with money. It is the case of the appellant that
Respondent No.2 does not have title over the property since the
settlement deed was not a registered one and Respondent No.1 herein
and accused No.2 had entered into criminal conspiracy and they
fraudulently induced the appellant to deliver a sum of Rs.5,00,001/-
with no intention to complete the sale deal. The averments in the
complaint would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the
authority.
8. In the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1, cited supra, this Court on the facts therein held
that the allegations in the complaint read as a whole prima facie did
not disclose commission of offences alleged and quashed the criminal
proceedings. Those decisions do not apply to the fact situation of
the present case.
9. The High Court has adopted a strictly hypertechnical approach
and such an endeavour may be justified during a trial, but certainly
not during the stage of investigation. At any rate it is too
premature a stage for the High Court to step in and stall the
investigation by declaring that it is a civil transaction wherein no
semblance of criminal offence is involved.
10. The appellant, is therefore right in contending that the First
Information Report should not have been quashed in this case and the
investigation should have been allowed to proceed.
11. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned
order.
…………………………….J.
(T.S. Thakur)
……………………………J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
May 9, 2014
advocatemmmohan 
Discussion
Comments are closed.