9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assistant by name Saranbabu. At the time of search, they found a sum of Rs.7,20,05,000/- in three bags and the same was seized in the presence of two witnesses and when Nagarajan/A1 was enquired, he gave a confession statement to the effect that A1 along with the petitioners herein, printed lottery tickets of Sikkim, Kerala and Maharashtra at Calcutta and Feridabad and sold the same unauthorisedly in other States as referred to above and also in Chennai and earned huge profit of Rs.7,20,05,000/- and the same was kept in his possession. The statement was recorded in the presence of the witnesses between 9.10am and 10.30am and the accused along with property seized were brought to S8, Adambakkam Police Station at 11.00 am and the case was registered as FIR in Cr.No.304/2012 for the offences referred to above. 3. Thereafter, the Investigating officer has filed alteration report to the effect that he, in the course of investigation, collected an unregistered sale agreement dated 02.03.2012 executed between one Leema Rose/wife of A2 and Moorthy/A3 for the sale of his house at Anna Nagar, Chennai, in non judicial stamp paper bearing nos.AE147535 and 147536 supplied by the State Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2009) 7 SCC 495 (Devendra v. State of UP) held that the High Court ordinarily would exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the allegations made in the first information report, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not make out any offence. When the allegations made in the first information report or the evidence collected during investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of an offence, the superior courts would not encourage harassment of a person in a criminal court for nothing. Only in this legal premises, the facts of the present case are to be gone into, to find out whether any ground is made out to quash the proceedings. 9. As already referred to, the FIR was registered on the basis of the confession statement given by A1 Nagarajan in the course of search of his house. Though the possession of the huge amount and the seizure of the same is not seriously denied on the side of the accused, the prosecution theory regarding the nature and source of the same is seriously denied on the side of the accused. It is also submitted herein that A1 Nagarajan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amount represents part of the sale consideration, also produced the following documents:(i)sale agreement dated 2.3.2012 executed between A3 and A4; (ii)sale deed dated 28.8.2012; (iii)Income Tax Returns filed by A3 and A4 on 28.5.2012 and 29.5.2012 and (iv)acknowledgment of the same by the Income Tax Authority. The combined appreciation of the documents referred to above would reveal that the parties agreed to sell the property for Rs.12,30,00,000/-, out of which, Rs.7,30,00,000/- was paid by way of advance on 2.3.2012 and the same was also reflected in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2012 forming part of income tax returns filed by A3 and A4 and the sale agreement was followed by execution and registration of sale deed on 28.08.2012. It is not the case of the prosecution that no such sale transaction was agreed upon and effected and the sale agreement dated 02.03.2012 and sale deed dated 28.08.2012 are sham and nominal one. What is their case is that the sale agreement dated 02.03.2012 was written in the non judicial stamp papers bearing specified numbers, which are sold to public on 13.03.2012 subsequent to the date of sale agreement dated 02.03.2012. It is alleged that an act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment reported in (2003) 5 SCC 257 (Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi) has, while dealing with the issue as to what is cheating as defined under section 420 IPC, in para 34 explained in detail, which reads as follows: "Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code deals with cheating. To hold a person guilty of cheating as defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise with an intention to retain the property. In other words, Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code which defines cheating, requires deception of any person (a)inducing that person to: (i)to deliver any property to any person, or (ii)to consent that any person shall retain any property OR (b)intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person, any body's mind, reputation or property. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the appellants state that a person may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were sold to public on 13.3.2012. However, the conduct of the parties in duly mentioning the amount representing the sale consideration in the income tax returns and acknowledgment and acceptance of the same by the competent Income Tax Authority and the very cursory glance at the documents produced on the side of the accused in support of the same would only improbablise such case of the prosecution that it was fabricated for the purpose as mentioned in the alteration report, as such, when the execution and existence of the document in question is not covered under Sections 463 and 464 IPC, the offences under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC are not attracted in the present case. 16. As rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the improbable nature of the case is writ large and is apparent on the face of the records and the materials made available herein appear to be manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made. The Hon'ble Apex court in the judgment reported in 1992 SCC Crl.426 (State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others) has given exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases, wherein, the extraordinary power under Article 226 or t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre and others), laid down two tests to be applied by the court, while considering the petition to quash the prosecution at FIR stage, which are (i)whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence; and (ii)the court has to take into consideration any special features, which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. It is observed by the Hon'ble Apex court therein that "the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration, the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage". In my considered view, the same are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case for the following reasons. 18. In this case, there is no element of impersonation or falsely claiming to be authorised to make a false document. The Hon'ble Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.5.2002, 17.5.2002 and 27.5.2002 in certified copy of revenue records, in order to over come the limitation and the police complaint came to be lodged in connection with the same and the case was registered and was investigated into and charge sheet was filed for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The appellant has come forward with the petition for quashing the proceedings. The High court dismissed the petition and the order of the High court was challenged before the Apex court. The allegations raised in the criminal case are that the civil suits were filed with false affidavit giving wrong dates. The Apex Court has, on facts found the allegations regarding alteration of dates to be true. The actual allegations raised therein are that the plaintiff in order to cause loss to the complainant, interpolated the revenue records and the same was produced in the court and false document produced before the court is crime. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 33 of the decision, was of the view that by adding figure 1 it cannot be said that the document became false for the simple reason that the appellant had nothing to gain from the same. By observing so, the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
