9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the appellants was an act of mala fide and based on political considerations. 2. Whether a criminal proceeding is maintainable when the appellants have obtained a civil decree in their favor. 3. Whether the contents of the FIR disclose a cognizable offence under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Summary: Issue 1: Mala Fide and Political Considerations The appellants contended that the FIR lodged by the respondents was an act of mala fide and based on political considerations. The Supreme Court noted that the appellants had obtained a decree in their favor against the State, the Collector, and Shri Kahla Singh, and the respondents, acting in their official capacity, were bound by the said decree. The Court observed that the institution of the criminal case must be held to be an act of mala fide on the part of the respondents, satisfying some of the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal's case, such as the allegations in the FIR not constituting any offence and the proceedings being manifestly attended with mala fide. Issue 2: Maintainability of Criminal Proceeding The appellants argued that having obtained a decree in their favor, a criminal proceeding would not be maintainable. The Supreme Court clarified that while the judgment of the Civil Court would not be binding on a criminal court, the facts and circumstances of this case indicated that the appellants' actions did not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 467, 468, and 469 IPC. The Court referred to the principle that an entry in a Revenue Record of rights is merely evidence of possession and does not create or extinguish title. Issue 3: Disclosure of Cognizable Offence The appellants contended that the contents of the FIR, even if taken at face value, did not disclose a cognizable offence under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that only because the appellants transferred a portion of the property without complete ownership, it did not by itself satisfy the ingredients of the alleged offences. The Court referred to its decision in Devendra & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., emphasizing that the mere filing of an application for mutation does not amount to a criminal offence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, allowing the appeal. The Court made it clear that this order should not be construed as a judgment regarding the right, title, and interest over the property in question.
|
