2022 (11) TMI 1408 - SC - Indian Laws

Possession of subject property - Jurisdiction of High Court ought for quashing the entire criminal proceedings - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of the complaint on the basis of which FIR came to be registered at the instance of the de-facto complainant/second respondent does not disclose any act of the present appellants or their participation in the commission of crime. They are neither concerned with the registered sale deed dated 4th May 1977 nor the later sale deed executed in favour of the de-facto complainant by Shravan Kumar Gupta dated 22nd December 2018 nor in possession of the subject property nor are parties to the civil proceedings and it is not the case of the complainant that either the appellants have played any active/passive role either in scribing the document or are facilitators or witness to the document in reference to which the complaint has been made for cheating and committing forgery or have played any role in delivery of possession of the subject property in question. What it appears is that the de-facto complainant has implicated the present appellants being members of the family to put pressure for obtaining possession of the subject property and to settle the civil dispute which is pending between Vinod Kumar Gupta Shravan Kumar Gupta and the de-facto complainant in Original Suit No.91 of 2015. The High Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the criminal complaint and proceedings in consequence thereof qua the present appellants - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the FIR and criminal proceedings against the appellants.
2. Role and involvement of the appellants in the alleged crime.
3. Exercise of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
4. Examination of the complaint and its sufficiency to constitute an offense.
5. Application of legal principles from previous judgments.

Detailed Analysis:

Validity of the FIR and criminal proceedings against the appellants:
The appellants challenged the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings initiated based on a complaint by the de-facto complainant alleging dispossession and forgery related to a property transaction. The Supreme Court examined whether the FIR and the criminal proceedings were justified given the appellants' alleged involvement.

Role and involvement of the appellants in the alleged crime:
The complaint alleged that the appellants, along with Vinod Kumar Gupta, forcibly dispossessed the complainant from the property. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellants were neither parties to the sale deed executed on 22nd December 2018 nor involved in the possession or any related civil proceedings. The allegations against the appellants were found to be insufficient to establish their active or passive participation in the alleged crime.

Exercise of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC:
The Supreme Court critiqued the High Court for not adequately examining the complaint's contents and the appellants' involvement. The High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC without a thorough analysis, which the Supreme Court found to be a failure in exercising its jurisdiction properly.

Examination of the complaint and its sufficiency to constitute an offense:
The Supreme Court analyzed the complaint and concluded that it did not disclose any act by the appellants that would constitute an offense. The appellants were not involved in the sale deed or possession of the property, nor were they parties to the civil disputes related to the property. The complaint did not establish any direct or indirect connection of the appellants with the alleged crimes of cheating and forgery.

Application of legal principles from previous judgments:
The Supreme Court referred to the principles laid out in previous judgments, particularly in Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2017) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which outline scenarios where the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings. The Court found that the present case fell within the categories where criminal proceedings should be quashed, as the allegations were either insufficient or absurd, and the proceedings appeared to be initiated with mala fide intentions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court should have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal complaint and proceedings against the appellants. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the appellants. The trial court was instructed to proceed independently against the other accused persons and decide the related civil suit on its own merits.