9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1540 - SC - Indian LawsSuit for cancellation of Power of Attorney - Mutation of property - whether there is any criminal offence disclosed in the FIR so far as the Appellant is concerned? - HELD THAT - The scope of interference by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide as recorded by the High Court by the judgment and order impugned. The High Court itself has said that though inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is very wide it has to be exercised in exceptional cases. There can be no doubt that the jurisdiction under Section 482 is not exercised for the asking it is exercised with care in exceptional cases. The scope of interference with an FIR is much more restricted and ordinarily the Court does not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there is an alternative remedy available to the applicant. Furthermore from the tenor of the order of the High Court rejecting the writ petition it is patently clear that one of the reasons why the High Court did not intervene at that stage was that the Police report had also not been submitted. The Police report has since been submitted and the charge sheet has been filed. It is true that about 12-13 witnesses have been named. However the said Bela Rani who executed the Power of Attorney has not even been cited as a witness. Apparently the said Bela Rani was not even examined by the Investigating Authorities. The charge sheet is totally vague. There is not even a whisper in the charge-sheet of what transpired from the investigation against the Appellant herein - A fraudulent fabricated or forged deed could mean a deed which was not actually executed but a deed which had fraudulently been manufactured by forging the signature of the ostensible executants. It is one thing to say that Bela Rani fraudulently executed a Power of Attorney authorising the sale of property knowing that she had no title to convey the property. It is another thing to say that the Power of Attorney itself was a forged fraudulent fabricated or manufactured one meaning thereby that it had never been executed by Bela Rani. Her signature had been forged. In Uma Shankar Gopalika 2004 (3) TMI 807 - SUPREME COURT this Court found that the complaint in that case did not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence under Section 420 or Section 120B IPC. The case was purely a civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lay before the civil Court. In this case it appears that criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the FIR does not disclose any offence so far as the Appellant is concerned. There is no whisper of how and in what manner this Appellant is involved in any criminal offence and the charge sheet the relevant part whereof has been extracted above is absolutely vague. There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice - The High Court has however to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in PARAMJEET BATRA VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. 2012 (12) TMI 1219 - SUPREME COURT . The given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. Only because a civil remedy is available may not be a ground to quash criminal proceedings. But as observed above in this case no criminal offence has been made out in the FIR read with the Charge-Sheet so far as this Appellant is concerned. The other accused Rajan Kumar has died. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the proceedings in Crime Case No.5973/2020 are quashed as against the Appellant - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. False and baseless case. 2. Improper investigation and evidence in the charge sheet. 3. Lack of prima facie case against the applicants. Detailed Analysis: 1. False and Baseless Case: The appellant argued that the case lodged against them was false and baseless. The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. aiming to quash the proceedings in Crime Case No.5973/2020 and related documents. The appellant claimed that the FIR and subsequent legal actions were initiated out of malice and lacked substantive grounds. 2. Improper Investigation and Evidence in the Charge Sheet: The appellant contended that the charge sheet was submitted without proper investigation and lacked substantial evidence. The charge sheet, as noted, was vague and did not detail the investigation findings against the appellant. The FIR and charge sheet failed to establish how the appellant was involved in any criminal activity. The Court observed that the charge sheet did not provide specifics on the alleged forgery or fraudulent actions, particularly noting that Bela Rani, the supposed executant of the Power of Attorney, was not even examined by the investigating authorities. 3. Lack of Prima Facie Case Against the Applicants: The appellant argued that no prima facie case was disclosed against them. The Court examined whether the FIR disclosed any criminal offence against the appellant. It was noted that the FIR lacked specific allegations against the appellant and did not establish the essential ingredients of a criminal offence. The Court cited several precedents, including Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar and Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, emphasizing that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment and should be quashed if they do not disclose a prima facie case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and quashing the proceedings in Crime Case No.5973/2020 against the appellant. It was determined that the FIR and charge sheet did not disclose any criminal offence involving the appellant, and the criminal proceedings appeared to be an abuse of the legal process aimed at harassment. Separate Judgment: In a related Criminal Appeal No. 933 of 2021, the issues were identical, and the appeal was also allowed based on similar reasoning. The appellants in this case were merely witnesses to the sale deed, and the FIR contained only vague allegations of collusion without specific details. The proceedings in Crime Case No.5973 of 2020 were quashed concerning these appellants as well.
|
