2014 (10) TMI 1070 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of FIR - any prima facie case disclosed by the FIR and the materials collected during the course of investigation - applicability of ingredients of the offences under Sections 294A, 420, 120b, 467, 468 and 471 IPC - amount seized is accounted one representing part of the sale consideration for sale of the property belonging to A3 and the same is duly reflected in the income tax returns and is also duly accepted by the competent Income Tax authority. HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision DEVENDRA ORS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. ANR. 2009 (5) TMI 921 - SUPREME COURT 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. As far as the act of forgery of valuable security and the act of forgery for the purpose of cheating and using the forged document as genuine punishable under sections 467, 468 and 471 are concerned, what is the act of forgery and act of forgery of valuable security is defined under Sections 463 and 467 IPC. The reading of the relevant provisions of law would disclose that the same involves making of false document with illegal intention. Further, Section 468 IPC defines forgery for the purpose of cheating, as an act of forgery coupled with an intention that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. That being so, the execution of any agreement between two persons in non judicial stamp paper even assuming by correcting the dates, will not amount to create a false document. As a matter of fact, the mode of act of forgery is whether by correcting the dates or by creating non judicial stamp papers, is not mentioned in the alteration report. The case of the prosecution in this regard is that the sale agreement was created in the stamp papers, which were sold to public on 13.3.2012. As far as the present case is concerned, the custody of unaccounted money is not specified to be an offence and the act of creating anti dated document by allegedly using forged non judicial stamp papers is also not specified as offence under the Code. When that being so, it cannot be assumed that the accused are punishable for the offences under sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC - it cannot be said that the parties have gained anything out of creating such document. If that is so, applying the views of the Hon'ble Apex court, no case for the act of forgery can be said to be made out against the accused in the present case. Other section charged against the petitioners and others is the offence punishable under section 294A IPC. The accused are charged for the same, based on further confession statement of A1 dated 16.3.2012. A1 has in his further so called confession statement, allegedly admitted his keeping one office in his house at Chennai, wherein, 3000 expired lottery tickets were kept by him and the same were seized on being identified by A1. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would seriously attack this part of the allegation to be highly improbable - This court finds greater force in the argument so advanced on the side of the accused. This court is of the view that neither the case of the prosecution do disclose any of the ingredients of the offences charged against the accused nor the accused can be subjected to face the ordeal of trial by reason of improbable nature of prosecution case, as such, the FIR pending on the file of the respondent police is liable to be quashed in entirety against the petitioners herein as well as non petitioners. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the FIR.
2. Prima facie case against the accused.
3. Applicability of Sections 294A, 420, 120B, 467, 468, and 471 IPC.
4. Legitimacy of the seized money.
5. Jurisdiction of the respondent police.
6. Alleged forgery and use of forged documents.
7. Validity of the sale agreement and related documents.
8. Malafide intention and ulterior motive behind the FIR.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the FIR:
The petitioners argued that the FIR registered against them is not maintainable. The court examined the basis of the FIR, which was the confession statement of A1 Nagarajan during a house search. The court noted that the confession did not mention Chennai as a place for unauthorized sale of lottery tickets, questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent police and suggesting malafide intentions behind the FIR.

2. Prima Facie Case Against the Accused:
The court evaluated whether the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected disclosed any prima facie case. It was argued that the seized amount was part of a legitimate sale transaction, duly reflected in income tax returns, and acknowledged by the Income Tax Authority. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused.

3. Applicability of Sections 294A, 420, 120B, 467, 468, and 471 IPC:
The court analyzed the applicability of these sections:
- Section 420 IPC (Cheating): The court found no evidence of fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property or any act of cheating.
- Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC (Forgery): The court observed that the alleged forgery related to non-judicial stamp papers did not constitute making a false document as defined under IPC.
- Section 294A IPC (Unauthorized Lottery Business): The court questioned the credibility of the further confession statement of A1 regarding the expired lottery tickets found in his Chennai office.

4. Legitimacy of the Seized Money:
The court considered the documents produced by the accused, including a sale agreement and income tax returns, which indicated that the seized amount was part of a legitimate property sale transaction. The court found no evidence to support the prosecution's claim that the money was ill-gotten from unauthorized lottery ticket sales.

5. Jurisdiction of the Respondent Police:
The court noted that the confession statement did not mention Chennai as a place for unauthorized lottery ticket sales, questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent police to register the FIR.

6. Alleged Forgery and Use of Forged Documents:
The court examined the prosecution's claim that the sale agreement was fabricated using non-judicial stamp papers sold after the date of the agreement. The court found no clear evidence to support this claim and noted that the sale transaction was duly reflected in income tax returns.

7. Validity of the Sale Agreement and Related Documents:
The court reviewed the sale agreement, sale deed, and income tax returns, finding them consistent and legitimate. The court observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the documents were sham or nominal.

8. Malafide Intention and Ulterior Motive Behind the FIR:
The court found the prosecution's case to be improbable and inconsistent with the evidence. The court cited the Supreme Court's guidelines on quashing FIRs, noting that the present case fell within the categories warranting quashing due to lack of prima facie case, legally permissible evidence, and malafide intentions.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the prosecution's case did not disclose any ingredients of the offences charged, and the accused should not face trial due to the improbable nature of the case. Consequently, the FIR in Cr.No.304/2012 was quashed in its entirety, and both petitions were allowed.