9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 61 - SC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - High Court 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 - HELD 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 - 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 Rs. 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed - 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. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The 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. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is unsustainable - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Nature of the dispute: Civil vs. Criminal. 3. Locus of the complainant. 4. Entrustment of property under Section 406 IPC. 5. Consideration of evidence at the stage of quashing proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329, and 386 IPC, invoking its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by not considering the material collected during the investigation, including witness statements and evidence, before quashing the proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of quashing, the High Court should not delve into the merits of the allegations, which are to be considered during the trial. The Supreme Court cited several precedents, including *Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat* and *Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra*, to support the principle that the High Court should exercise its inherent powers sparingly and not as a rule. 2. Nature of the Dispute: Civil vs. Criminal: The High Court concluded that the dispute was of a civil nature, primarily involving a registered agreement to sell a plot of land. The Supreme Court, however, noted that there were serious allegations of forgery and criminal intimidation, which needed to be examined during the trial. The Supreme Court highlighted that the existence of civil proceedings does not preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings if the allegations disclose a cognizable offence. 3. Locus of the Complainant: The High Court observed that the original complainant had no locus to file the complaint, as no power of attorney executed by Munni Devi was placed on record. The Supreme Court countered this by stating that the FIR mentioned the execution of the power of attorney, and the investigating officer had conducted an investigation based on this. The question of whether the complainant had the power of attorney should be determined during the trial. 4. Entrustment of Property under Section 406 IPC: The High Court found no case for the offence under Section 406 IPC, noting that there was no entrustment of property. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the joint notarized affidavit, which mentioned the payment of Rs. 25 lakhs and the transfer of possession, was seriously disputed. The Supreme Court emphasized that whether the amount was paid and possession transferred are triable issues that should be examined during the trial. 5. Consideration of Evidence at the Stage of Quashing Proceedings: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for entering into the merits of the allegations at the stage of quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court should not act like an appellate court or conduct a trial while considering a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Instead, it should focus on whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence and whether there is prima facie material to proceed with the trial. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the criminal proceedings, directing that the trial should proceed in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations were confined to the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and should not influence the trial court's decision on the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were reinstated.
|
