9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (10) TMI 550 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive? Held that - The impugned judgment of the High Court in declining to exercise its inherent power has led to grave miscarriage of justice. . There cannot be any straight-jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided. The Court should try to maintain proper balance between individual liberty and the interest of the public and the State while issuing non-bailable warrant. Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment and in order to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to otherwise secure the ends of the justice we direct that all the proceedings emanating from the FIR shall stand quashed.
Issues Involved:
1. Wrongful cancellation of General Power of Attorney. 2. Illegal execution of the sale deed without returning earnest money. 3. Allegations of cheating and forgery under sections 420, 467, and 120B IPC. 4. Abuse of process of the court and the exercise of inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Issuance of non-bailable warrants. Detailed Analysis: 1. Wrongful Cancellation of General Power of Attorney: The appellants contended that the cancellation of the General Power of Attorney was necessary to protect the interests of the Sabha because respondent no.4 was misusing it by selling the Sabha's land. The cancellation was executed after informing the respondent and was registered properly. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., stating that the allegations in the FIR constituted an offence. 2. Illegal Execution of the Sale Deed Without Returning Earnest Money: The appellants argued that the sale of the land to Sunil Kumar was done only after respondent nos.3 and 4 failed to fulfill their contractual obligations and had mala fide intentions. The earnest money was forfeited as per the terms of the contract, and the sale was executed to protect the interests of the Sabha. The High Court did not agree with this argument and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue. 3. Allegations of Cheating and Forgery Under Sections 420, 467, and 120B IPC: The Supreme Court analyzed the ingredients of sections 420 (cheating) and 467 (forgery) IPC. It was observed that the allegations in the FIR did not constitute the offence of forgery under section 467 IPC as the essential elements were missing. Similarly, the allegations of cheating under section 420 IPC were not substantiated as there was no evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. The court concluded that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of the court. 4. Abuse of Process of the Court and Exercise of Inherent Powers Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The Supreme Court reiterated the scope and ambit of the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. It emphasized that these powers should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. The court cited various precedents where criminal proceedings were quashed to prevent injustice. It was held that the High Court erred in not exercising its inherent powers to quash the FIR, leading to a miscarriage of justice. 5. Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants: The court observed that non-bailable warrants should be issued only when necessary, such as when a person is unlikely to appear in court voluntarily or could harm someone if not taken into custody. In this case, the trial court issued non-bailable warrants without proper scrutiny of facts, which was deemed improper. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for courts to balance personal liberty and societal interest before issuing such warrants. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, quashing all proceedings emanating from the FIR to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. The court also highlighted the importance of careful consideration before issuing non-bailable warrants and directed the civil court to decide the pending suit without being influenced by the observations made in this judgment. The appeal was disposed of, with each party bearing its own costs.
|
