TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Magistrate also took the cognizance - the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the Investigating Authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarized affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused No.2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused no.2 - Ms. Mamta Gupta, ₹ 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed - Nothing is on record that any suit for specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nagar, by order dated 07.09.2015, after perusal of the facts mentioned in the application/complaint and documents and having found a prima facie case of cognizable offence and having observed that the police is required to investigate the same, allowed the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and directed the concerned Station House Officer to register the first information report and investigate it in accordance with law. 2.1 That thereafter the concerned SHO registered the FIR as Case Crime No. 0645 of 2015 against the private respondents herein for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. As per the allegations in the FIR, one Munni Devi was the owner of Plot No. 1342, W Block 2 Yojna Juhi Kala, Damodar Nagar, admeasuring 387 sq.ft.; that she appointed the complainant Kaptan Singh as her power of attorney holder to take care of the said plot; that Munni Devi wanted to sell the said plot; that she entered into a registered agreement to sell with one Mamta Gupta respondent no. 3 herein on 27.10.2010 for a total sale consideration of ₹ 25,00,000/-; that at the time of agreement, the purchaser Mamta Gupta handed over five cheques of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the investigating officer filed chargesheet no. 320/2015 dated 26.11.2015 against the private respondents herein for the aforesaid offences. 2.3 That thereafter the private respondents herein approached the High Court for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was the case on behalf of all the accused private respondents herein in the 482 petition that dispute is of a civil nature; that Munni Devi entered into a registered agreement to sell on 27.10.2010 with Mamta Gupta as vendee; that Munni Devi undertook to get the land free hold done on the aforesaid plot and thereafter to execute the sale deed in favour of Mamta Gupta; that part payment was made immediately by cheque and cash both and the remaining amount of ₹ 10 lakhs were to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed; that on the same date a joint notarized affidavit of Mamta Gupta and Munni Devi was also executed demonstrating the payment of ₹ 25 lakhs by Mamta Gupta and the transfer of possession to Mamta Gupta; that after obtaining possession Mamta Gupta constructed a two-room set on the said plot. It was also the case on behalf of the accused that thereafter Munni Devi did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that after the completion of the investigation and after collecting the credible evidence against the accused, the investigating officer has submitted a chargesheet and the learned Magistrate after applying its mind judiciously has taken cognizance against the accused. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss 482 application. 4. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said application and has quashed the entire criminal proceedings mainly on the grounds that the original complainant Kaptan Singh for all practical purposes is ranked outsider and stranger to the deal and therefore the criminal proceedings initiated at his behest cannot continue; that no power of attorney executed by Munni Devi in his favour has been filed with the counter affidavit and on the ground that the dispute is of a civil nature and civil suits are pending between the parties and veracity and genuineness of the notarized affidavit signed by Munni Devi and Mamta Gupta can be considered in the civil proceedings and there was no entrustment of property and therefore no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 of the IPC. That having observed that there is no case against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337. 6.3 It is submitted that as held by this Court in the case of XYZ (Supra) when there are serious triable allegations in complaint it is improper to quash the FIR in exercise of inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6.4 It is further submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate and consider that the civil proceedings were initiated initially by Munni Devi and thereafter the accused no.2 filed the suit only for permanent injunction and no suit for specific performance has been filed. It is submitted that as such there are very serious allegations of forgery of the joint notarized document dated 27.10.2010 by which the accused have alleged to have given ₹ 25 lakhs to Munni Devi. It is submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that in the present case there are two documents of the very date i.e. 27.10.2010, one is registered one in which the sale consideration is stated to be ₹ 25 lakhs and in another document of same date dated 27.10.2010, the sale consideration is stated to be ₹ 35 lakhs and it is stated that ₹ 25 lakhs have been paid to Munni Devi. It is submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8.5 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the appeal. 9 Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length. 9.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 of IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the Investigating Officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the Learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 of IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Arvind Khanna (Supra), Managipet (Supra) and in the case of XYZ (Supra), referred to hereinabove. 9.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10 The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarized affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused No.2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused no.2 - Ms. Mamta Gupta, ₹ 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27.10.2010, the sale consideration is stated to be ₹ 25 lakhs and with no re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial. 13. In view of the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
