2020 (7) TMI 819 - HC - Indian Laws

Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. - locus of opposite party no. 2- Kaptan Singh to ignite the instant criminal prosecution - HELD THAT - It is undisputed that the contesting parties have entered into an agreement to sell on 27.10.2010 and from the FIR it has been borne out that on 05.08.2015 the alleged Power of Attorney was executed by Mrs. Munni Devi in favour of Kaptan Singh but astoundingly no power of attorney in this regard has been annexed with the record. There are balled averments conferring this stature of Kaptan Singh (opposite party no. 2) which cannot be accepted on its face value. For all the practical purposes he is rank outsider and stranger to the surreptitious deal therefore the criminal prosecution initiated at his behest would lead into nullity. In all fairness he ought to have annexed the Power of Attorney allegedly executed by Ms. Mamta Devi in his favour with the counter affidavit. On the strength of bald Power of Attorney the opposite party no.2 Kaptan Singh has initiated the criminal case. Section 482 envisages inherent power to the High Courts to pass necessary orders for securing the ends of justice. In the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd 2006 (7) TMI 575 - SUPREME COURT the Division Bench of Hon ble Apex Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. and formulated the guiding principles holding that In the instant case there are two documents annexed by the applicants. Though both the documents were executed on 27.10.2010 and signed by the contesting parties this Court is at serious loss to spell out the genuineness of the aforesaid documents either way. Moreover the civil courts are seized with the mater and they are required to adjudicate the pivotal question by taking evidence at their discussion on the point. The present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings.
2. Nature of the dispute (civil vs. criminal).
3. Locus standi of the complainant (opposite party no. 2).
4. Examination of allegations under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329, and 386 IPC.
5. Examination of the principles for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Quash Criminal Proceedings:
The applicants sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3302 of 2015. The court considered the legal principles governing the exercise of this power, including the need to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court.

2. Nature of the Dispute (Civil vs. Criminal):
The court examined the nature of the dispute, which originated from an agreement to sell a property. The applicants argued that the dispute was purely civil and no criminality could be attached to it. The court noted that both parties had filed civil suits regarding the property, which were pending adjudication. The court emphasized that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction.

3. Locus Standi of the Complainant (Opposite Party No. 2):
The court scrutinized the locus standi of Kaptan Singh, who claimed to be the Power of Attorney holder for Munni Devi. The court found that no power of attorney was annexed to the record, and Kaptan Singh was essentially a stranger to the original agreement. The court concluded that the criminal prosecution initiated by Kaptan Singh lacked legitimacy and was an abuse of the process of the court.

4. Examination of Allegations under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329, and 386 IPC:
The court analyzed whether the allegations made in the complaint constituted the necessary ingredients for the offenses under the Penal Code. The court found that the allegations did not prima facie constitute the offenses alleged. Specifically, the court noted that the essential elements of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 IPC, such as dishonest misappropriation and entrustment, were not established. The court also found that the allegations of physical assault were not corroborated by medical evidence.

5. Examination of the Principles for Quashing Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The court referred to the guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., including the need to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice. The court cited precedents such as Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Ahmad Ali Quraishi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which outlined scenarios where quashing is warranted. The court concluded that the criminal proceedings in this case were initiated with mala fides and an ulterior motive, making them fit for quashing.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329, and 386 IPC, finding that the allegations did not constitute the necessary ingredients for the offenses and that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of the court. The court also directed the civil court to expedite the adjudication of the pending civil suits regarding the disputed property. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the judgment was ordered to be transmitted to the concerned court.