2022 (12) TMI 1482 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - criminal conspiracy - signature on the alleged sale deed is forged - dispute is of civil nature or criminal nature - HELD THAT - It appears prima facie that the purchaser (Vendee) might have obtained finance from AXIS Bank Ltd. for the purpose of purchasing the plot in question. The police should have investigated whether the amount of Rs. 24, 08, 000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eight Thousand Only) was paid by AXIS Bank Ltd. directly to the original complainant (respondent No. 2 herein). There is no clarity even in this regard. This aspect shall also be looked into while deciding the civil suit between the parties. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC the High Court has to be conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of the act alleged thereunder. Whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether the dispute which is in substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC based on perfunctory police investigation.
2. Allegations of forged sale deed and criminal conspiracy.
3. Discrepancies in police investigation and charge sheet filing.
4. Civil suit pending alongside criminal prosecution.
5. Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC by the High Court.

Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings:
The appeal challenges the High Court's order declining to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant. The police investigation regarding a disputed sale deed was criticized for being perfunctory. The complainant alleged that his signature on the sale deed was forged, yet no hand writing expert report was obtained to verify this claim. Additionally, the investigation failed to address crucial aspects such as the payment of sale consideration and the involvement of other parties. The court highlighted the lack of legal evidence to proceed with the trial against the appellant.

Issue 2: Allegations of Forged Sale Deed:
The case revolved around a disputed sale deed for a plot of land, where the complainant claimed that the appellant orchestrated a conspiracy to transfer the property to a third party. The police charge sheet only implicated the appellant, disregarding other potential accomplices. The court noted the importance of resolving the dispute over the sale deed in the civil court, emphasizing that the criminal prosecution should not proceed until the civil court determines the validity of the deed.

Issue 3: Discrepancies in Police Investigation:
The court criticized the police for overlooking critical investigative steps, such as verifying the authenticity of signatures and tracing the payment of sale consideration. The failure to involve all relevant parties in the charge sheet raised doubts about the validity of the criminal conspiracy allegations. The court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation before implicating the appellant in criminal proceedings.

Issue 4: Civil Suit and Criminal Prosecution:
The appellant was involved in both a criminal case and a civil suit regarding the disputed sale deed. The court recognized the ongoing civil proceedings and highlighted the importance of allowing the civil court to determine the legality of the sale deed. It emphasized that the resolution of the civil suit would influence any future criminal proceedings related to the alleged forgery.

Issue 5: Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC:
The court clarified the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, emphasizing that this power should be sparingly used to prevent the abuse of court processes. It highlighted the distinction between civil and criminal disputes, stating that if a civil remedy is available and pursued, the High Court should consider quashing criminal proceedings to prevent misuse of the legal system. The court ultimately allowed the appeal, quashing the criminal proceedings while allowing for future action based on the civil court's findings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the court's thorough examination of the issues raised, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive investigation and the importance of allowing the civil court to adjudicate on the disputed sale deed before proceeding with criminal prosecution.