Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2022
Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 5866 of 2022
Usha Chakraborty & Anr.
…Appellants
Versus
State of West Bengal & Anr.
…Respondents
J U D G M E N T
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Leave granted.
1. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 17.05.2022 in C.R.R. No.
2615/2017 passed by the Calcutta High Court at Calcutta.
The appellants herein approached the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2023.01.30
17:12:02 IST
Reason:
(Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of F.I.R. No. 189/2017 dated
11.04.2017, registered against them and two others, at
Page 1 of 29
Madhyamgram Police Station under Sections 323, 384,
406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code
(I.P.C.) raising various grounds. The High Court declined
to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
holding that perusal of the case diary as also the
materials appearing therefrom prima facie made out a
case for investigation. In that view of the matter, the
interim order granting stay of all further proceedings
pursuant to the registration of the stated F.I.R. was
vacated and the stated petition was dismissed.
2. It is to be noted that the aforesaid crime was
registered pursuant to the forwarding of an application
filed by the respondent herein under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. raising the allegation against the persons named
therein including the appellants, by the learned
Magistrate for investigation and thereupon, investigation
was commenced. The appellants herein assailed the very
order for forwarding of the application for investigation
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the consequential
registration of the said F.I.R. and also the ongoing
investigation pursuant thereto , raising various
Page 2 of 29
contentions that the application moved by the respondent
herein before the learned Magistrate did not disclose
commission of any cognizable offence, that the
allegations in the complaint are actuated by mala fides,
that the allegations would reveal that they pertain to pure
civil dispute between the parties and in fact the
respondent did resort to civil remedies, that he failed in
obtaining favourable order in interlocutory applications
moved in a duly instituted suit and upon its frustration
and as a tool for oppression and harassment he moved
the application which culminated in the registration of the
F.I.R. without disclosing the crucial aspects that in respect
to the subject matter the suit instituted by him viz., Title
Suit No. 363/2015 carrying the prayers for a declaration
that he is the secretary of the schedule school and also
for a permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1
and 2 therein viz., the appellants herein, and their men,
agents and associates from procuring and/or creating any
document illegally and/or from obstructing him in
representing as the Secretary of the Managing
Committee, is pending before the First Court Civil Judge
Page 3 of 29
(Junior Division) at Barasat. It is also contended therein
that the respondent herein had suppressed certain further
aspects viz., that much before the filing of the application
based on which the F.I.R. was registered he was removed
from the post of Secretary and in fact, from the
membership of the very Board of Trustees. Initially, he
moved the office of Labour Commissioner raising
grievances against such removal from the office of the
secretary before instituting the stated suit. The impugned
order would reveal that upon forming the opinion on
perusal that they would prima facie make out a case for
investigation, the High Court declined to exercise the
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It would also reveal
that the crucial and relevant contentions raised by the
appellants were not at all considered by the High Court.
Hence, necessarily, the question to be decided is whether
the High Court was justified in declining to invoke the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated
05.04.2017 for forwarding the application filed by the
respondent herein carrying allegations qua the appellant
for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., the
Page 4 of 29
consequential registration of the F.I.R. and the
investigation pursuant thereto qua the appellant, in the
facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the
settled position in the matter of exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
3. There can be no doubt with respect to the position
that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised with care and caution and sparingly. To wit,
exercise of the said power must be for securing the ends
of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that
power may result in the abuse of process of law. Before
referring to the relevant authorities on the scope of
exercise of power under Section 482, it is only apposite to
refer to application filed by the respondent herein before
the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Barasat, which was numbered as C. Case No. 538/2017,
against Shri Shankar Biswas, Shri Debashis Roy and the
appellants herein seeking for a direction to conduct
investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. The appellants
herein were arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4 therein. In
view of the nature of the contentions and recriminations
Page 5 of 29
raised by the appellants and the respondents in this
appeal, it is only appropriate to extract the translated
copy of the said application filed by the respondent herein
as under :-
“Translated Copy
C/2687/17
Sd/- Jayanta Banerjee
Filed by:
Sd/- Illegible
District – North 24 – Parganas
In the Court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Barasat.
C.Case No. 538/2017
Shri Jayanta Banerjee son of Shri
Nripendra Kumar Banerjee, resident
Of No. 93, Basunagar, P.O. and P.S.
Madhyamgram, Dist. North 24-Parganas,
Kolkata – 700129
…Complainant / Applicant
- Versus -
1) Shri Shankar Biswas
Son of Late Birendra Nathy Biswas,
2) Shri Debashish Roy son of Late
Kshiti Ranjan Roy,
3) Shrimati Usha Chakraborty, wife of
Late Makhanlal Chakraborty
4) Shrimati Ashoka Chakraborty daughter
Of Late Makhanlal Chakraborty
All residents of P3 62, Basunagar,
P.O. and P.S. Madhyamgram,
District North 24 – Parganas,
Kolkata 700 129
…Accused persons.
Received on 11.04.17 at 16:35 hrs.
Page 6 of 29
And started M/Gram. P.S. case
No. 189/17 dated 11.4.17
U/s 323/384/406/423/467/468/420/120B I.P.C.
Sd/- Illegible
11.4.17
Sd/- Jayanta Banerjee
A n d
Reference – Madhyamgram P.S. G.D.E. No.,
1459/17 dated 22.3.2017 and application
Submitted on 27.3.2017 to Superintendent
of Police North 24 – parganas
Application under the aforesaid Section
And
Sections 323/384/406/423/467/468/420/120B
IPC
And
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
The applicant submitted that –
1) The Applicant is a highly educated Indian
Citizen and live in the aforesaid address
permanently.
2) The Applicant is one of the Trustee of
Basunagar of Bagla Sundari Memorial Trust at
Basunagar Madhyamgram address of which is
as 271, Basunagar, Madhyamgram Kolkata 700
129. Under the said Trust there is a High School
under the name of Road Bank Educare. The
applicant is the Secretary of the said school and
is connected with the Managing Committee for
along time and has been doing various type of
social service activity.
Sd/- Jayanta Banerjee
Page 7 of 29
2) The Accused persons are in different post of
the Managing Committee of the said School.
Accused No. 3 is the Chair Person of the said
Trust and Accused No. 4 is the Head Mistress of
the said School. However, unfortunately the
Accused persons are extremely ferocious and
cunning type of person. The Accused persons
keeping complainant in the dark and without
giving any information by strengthening the
said Trust Deed illegally got the same
registered on 12.07.2016 and removed the
complainant illegally from this post from the
said Trust. (The Xerox of two copies of the said
Trust Deed are enclosed herewith). The
complainant having made process of the said
incident, the said person abused the
complainant and assaulted him and Accused
No. 1 and 2 said that if the complainant went to
take previous steps then he would be kill.
3) The accused persons joke the complainant
out of the said School by force illegally and
withheld all necessary papers and documents of
the complainant. The said accused persons
have kept the L.I.C. Policy of the complainant
(hearing No. 425670161) Bank Pass Book
namely (Axis Bank Madhyamgram Branch A/C
No. 547010100053181, Oriental Bank of
Commerce, Madhyamgram Branch A/c. No.
07512010017260, Union Bank Madhyam Gram
Branch A/C/ No. 5470002010009486 and A/C
No. 570002010001131, put them under their
custody.
Sd/- Jayanta Banerjee
Although the applicant made repeated request
for returning the said document, they did not
pay any heed to the same. The Accused
persons have withheld the personal Tata Sumo
Car of the complainant bearing No. WB 26-C1-
666 forcibly.
Page 8 of 29
4) The said accused person has usurped
misappropriated the amount of Provident Fund
payable to the complainant and the document
relating to the same when the complainant
make enquiry from EPS Office Titagarh with the
Provident Fund A/C. No. 100697965118 the
office authority inform that there is discrepancy
in the amount deposited by the complainant.
The accused person have forged all the
document relating to ESI of the complaint
namely E.A.I.C. (code No. 40000384070001303)
and usurp the money. Now the complainant
has come to know that the accused persons
have duplicated the document relating to
School and Trust for using the same forever
intentionally and have practice forgery. The
applicant think that the accused persons has
dis-conspiracy in the same.
4) The accused No. 1 is a extremely ferocious
person and is under the protection of particular
Political party and is an anti-social aliments. He
wants to harass heckle the complainant at any
cause. Although the complainant has informed
everything again and again to Madhyamgram
Police Station. The Police Station authority has
not taken any strep till date.
6) The applicant prayed to your Honour’s
Court by conducting investigation of the said
incident they be properly punished.
Hence, the Applicant prays to this Court
that – by awarding punishment to the accused
U/S. 323/384/406/423/467/468/420/120B I.P.C.
against the accused persons and by sending
this application to C.I.D. North 24-Parganas
(Barasat K.B. Basu Road, Kolkata 700 124) U/S.
156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the said by fitting as an
F.I.R. Investigation of the said incident be done
and the accused persons are properly punished.
End –
Page 9 of 29
Dated 5.4.2017
Sd/- Jayanta Banerjee
Affidavit
I Shri Jayanta Banerjee, aged 48 years son of
Shri Nreipendra Kumar Banerjee, resident of No.
90 Basunagar, P.O. and P.S. Madhaymgram,
District North 24-Parganas, Kolkata – 700 129,
Nationality India, faith Hindu, declare to the
effect that:
1) I am the applicant in this Application.
2) I have not placed this incident before any
Court heretofore.
3) When I inform about the said incident to
Madhyamgram Police Station they advised me
to take resort to Court.
The aforesaid facts are true to my
knowledge. I sign this Application after getting
it written and read over and writing and going
through the same finding it to be written as per
my instruction.
Sd/- Jayanta Banerjee
Signature of the Applicant.
Signature of the Identifier
Sd/- Illegible
Advocate.
(Endorsement)
Sd/- Illegible
Page 10 of 29
Certified to be the English translation of an
Application with Affidavit in Bengali.
Sd/-
19/05/22
R. Islam
Rtd. Senior Interpreting Officer
O.S. High Court, Calcutta.
TRUE COPY”
(Emphasis added)
4. Before adverting to the rival contentions with
reference to application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.
within the parameters, we think it only appropriate to
refer to the following decisions of this Court in respect to
the scope of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C
.
5.1 In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand &
1
Ors. , this Court held:-
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of the High Court has
to be cautious. This power is to be used
sparingly and only for the purpose of
preventing abuse of the process of any court or
1 (2013) 11 SCC 673
Page 11 of 29
otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a
complaint discloses a criminal offence or not
depends upon the nature of the facts alleged
therein. Whether essential ingredients of
criminal offence are present or not has to be
judged by the High Court. A complaint
disclosing civil transactions may also have a
criminal texture. But the High Court must see
whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil
nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In
such a situation, if a civil remedy is available
and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this
case, the High Court should not hesitate to
quash the criminal proceedings to prevent
abuse of process of the court.”
5.2 In Vesa Holdings Private Limited and Anr. v.
2
State of Kerala and Ors. , it was held that: -
“13. It is true that a given set of facts may
make out a civil wrong as also a criminal
offence and only because a civil remedy may
be available to the complainant that itself
cannot be a ground to quash a criminal
proceeding. The real test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose the
criminal offence of cheating or not. In the
2 (2015) 8 SCC 293
Page 12 of 29
present case there is nothing to show that at
the very inception there was any intention on
behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is
a condition precedent for an offence under
Section 420 IPC. In our view the complaint does
not disclose any criminal offence at all. The
criminal proceedings should not be encouraged
when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an
abuse of the process of the court. The superior
courts while exercising this power should also
strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion
in view of these facts allowing the police
investigation to continue would amount to an
abuse of the process of the court and the High
Court committed an error in refusing to exercise
the power under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to quash the proceedings.”
5.3 In Kapil Aggarwal and Ors. v. Sanjay Sharma
3
and Ors. , this Court held that Section 482 is designed to
achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings
are not permitted to generate into weapons of
harassment.
3 (2021) 5 SCC 524
Page 13 of 29
5.4 In the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
4
Lal , a two Judge Bench of this Court considered the
statutory provisions as also the earlier decisions and held
as under: -
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just
4 AIR 1992 SC 604
Page 14 of 29
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge.
5.5 In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
5
Maharashtra and Others , a three Judge Bench of this
Court laid down the following principles of law:-
“57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from
the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja
Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law
emerge:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained
in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable
offences;
5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
Page 15 of 29
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The
rarest of rare cases standard in its application for
quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused
with the norm which has been formulated in the context
of the death penalty, as explained previously by this
Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and
a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the
State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The
inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to
secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the
process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
Page 16 of 29
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would
result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial
process should not interfere at the stage of investigation
of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the
offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by
the police is in progress, the court should not go into the
merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be
permitted to complete the investigation. It would be
premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of
law. During or after investigation, if the investigating
officer finds that there is no substance in the application
made by the complainant, the investigating officer may
file an appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the court to be
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on
the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit,
regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the
self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the
parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.
Page 17 of 29
Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction
to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for
quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the
court when it exercises the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the
allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence and is not required to consider on
merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable
offence or not and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations
in the FIR.”
6. We will now, carefully scan the application filed by
the respondent herein which was forwarded for
investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C to consider
whether the appellant is justified in taking up the
contention that the allegations raised thereunder did not
contain the ingredients to constitute the alleged offences
or whether the respondent had made out a prima facie
case for investigation. In that regard it is worthwhile to
take note of the fact that the respondent herein has
alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384,
406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the
appellants. We will refer to the ingredient to constitute
such offences to consider the said question.
Page 18 of 29
6.1 The basic requirements/ingredients to bring home
the accusations under the alleged offences are
hereunder:-
Offence punishable under Section 323, IPC.
(i) causation of hurt by another person; (ii) that he caused
such hurt voluntarily; (iii) that such a case is not covered
under Section 334, IPC.
Offence of extortion punishable under Section 384,
IPC.
(i) intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to
himself or another; (ii) dishonestly inducing a person so
put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or
valuable security.
Offence of criminal breach of trust punishable
under Section 406, IPC.
(i) Entrustment of the property or any dominion over
property with accusation; (ii) The person entrusted
Page 19 of 29
dishonestly misappropriating or converting to his own use
that property; or dishonestly using or disposing that
property in violation of any direction of law prescribing
the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or of any
legal contract, express or implied, which he has made
touching the discharge of such trust or willfully causing
sufferance to any other person so to do.
Offence punishable under Section 423, IPC.
The essential ingredients to constitute an offence
under Section 423, IPC is that the sale deed or deed
subjecting an immovable property to a charge was
contained a false statement relating to the consideration
or relating to the persons or whose use or benefit, it was
intended to operate. Thus, it is evident that Section 423,
IPC deals with twin specific frauds in the matter of
execution of deeds or instruments of transfer or charge,
idest , (i) false recital as to consideration or false recital as
to the name of beneficiary.
Offence punishable under Section 467, IPC.
Page 20 of 29
Virtually, the offence under Section 467 is an
aggravated form of the offence under Section 466, IPC.
The essential ingredients to constitute the offence
punishable under this Section are (i) commission of
forgery; (ii) that such commission of forgery must be in
relation to a document purporting to be (a) a valuable
property; or (b) a will; or (c) an authority to adopt a son;
or (d) which purports to give authority to any person to
make or transfer any valuable security; or (e) the receive
the principle, interest or dividends thereon; or (f) to
receive or deliver any money, movable property or
valuable security, or any document purporting to be an
acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of
money, or (g) an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of
any movable property or valuable security.
Offence punishable under Section 468, IPC.
(i) Commission of forgery, (ii) that he did so
intending that the document or electronic record forged
shall be used for the purpose of cheating.
Offence punishable under Section 420, IPC.
Page 21 of 29
To constitute the said offence there must be
deception i.e., the accused must have deceived someone;
that by such deception the accused must induce a person
(i) to deliver any property; or (ii) to make, alter, destroy a
whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is
signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted
into a valuable property; or (iii) that the accused must
have done so dishonestly. The offence punishable under
Section 120B, IPC, to constitute criminal conspiracy, there
must be agreement between two or more persons. The
agreement should be to do or cause to be done some
illegal act, or some act which is not illegal, by illegal
means, provided that where the agreement is other than
one to commit an offence, the prosecution must further
prove; or (iv) that some act besides the agreement was
done by or more of the parties in pursuance of it.
7. Now, the question is whether the allegations in the
aforesaid application are sufficient to constitute the
alleged offences.
Page 22 of 29
8. We have already extracted the said application filed
by the respondent against the appellants in its entirety.
At the outset, it is to be noted that in the affidavit
accompanying the application, the respondent has stated
thus:- “I have not placed this incident before any Court
heretofore”. In the application, obviously, it is stated that
he is one of the trustees of Bagla Sundari Memorial Trust
at Basunagar Madhyagram and under the said trust there
is a high school by name of Rose Bank Educare and he is
the Secretary of the said school. The recital in paragraph
2 of the application filed by the respondent would reveal
his case that the accused persons kept him in dark and
without giving any information by strengthening the said
trust deed illegally got the same registered on 12.07.2016
and removed him from the said post. It is in this context
that the aforesaid statement in the aforesaid affidavit
assumes relevance. It is the case of the appellants that
in regard to his removal from the post of Secretary of the
school, the respondent had instituted title suit No.363 of
2015, praying therein for a declaration that he is the
Secretary of the school and the said suit is still pending.
Page 23 of 29
Despite the institution of the said suit and its pendency
before the First Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Barasat the respondent made such a statement in the
affidavit. That apart, what is stated in the application is
that he is the Secretary of the school, run by the trust.
9. The materials on record pertaining to the said
pleadings instituted in the Civil Suit, produced in this
proceeding would reveal that the respondent was in fact
ousted from the membership of the trust. In the counter
affidavit filed in this proceeding, the respondent has
virtually admitted the pendency of the suit filed against
his removal from the post of Secretary and the
trusteeship and its pendency. The factum of passing of
adverse orders in the interlocutory applications in the said
Civil Suit as also the prima facie finding and conclusion
arrived at by the Civil Court that the respondent stands
removed from the post of Secretary and also from the
trusteeship are also not disputed therein. Then, the
question is why would the respondent conceal those
relevant aspects? The indisputable and undisputed facts
(admitted in the counter-affidavit by the respondent)
Page 24 of 29
would reveal the existence of the civil dispute on removal
of the respondent from the post of Secretary of the school
as also from the trusteeship. Obviously, it can only be
taken that since the removal from the office of the
Secretary and the trusteeship was the causative incident,
he concealed the pendency of the civil suit to cover up
the civil nature of the dispute.
10. By non-disclosure the respondent has, in troth,
concealed the existence of a pending civil suit between
him and the appellants herein before a competent civil
court which obviously is the causative incident for the
respondent’s allegation of perpetration of the aforesaid
offences against the appellants. We will deal with it
further and also its impact a little later. There cannot be
any doubt with respect to the position that in order to
cause registration of an F.I.R. and consequential
investigation based on the same the petition filed under
Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., must satisfy the essential
ingredients to attract the alleged offences. In other words,
if such allegations in the petition are vague and are not
specific with respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead
Page 25 of 29
to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation
on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged.
As noticed hereinbefore, the respondent alleged
commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406,
423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants.
A bare perusal of the said allegation and the ingredients
to attract them, as adverted to hereinbefore would reveal
that the allegations are vague and they did not carry the
essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences.
There is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the
appellants herein had caused hurt on the respondent so
also, they did not reveal a case that the appellants had
intentionally put the respondent in fear of injury either to
himself or another or by putting him under such fear or
injury, dishonestly induced him to deliver any property or
valuable security. The same is the position with respect
to the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406,
423, 467, 468, 420 and 120 B, IPC. The ingredients to
attract the alleged offence referred to hereinbefore and
the nature of the allegations contained in the application
filed by the respondent would undoubtedly make it clear
Page 26 of 29
that the respondent had failed to make specific allegation
against the appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid
offences. The factual position thus would reveal that the
genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are
nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the
dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The
appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of
criminal offence in the issue. In such circumstance when
the respondent had already resorted to the available civil
remedy and it is pending, going by the decision in
Paramjit Batra (supra), the High Court would have
quashed the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of
the process of the Court but for the concealment.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact
that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil
nature, the respondent had already approached the
jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is
pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact
that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use
the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment
against the appellants. The indisputable facts that the
Page 27 of 29
respondent has filed the pending title suit in the year
2015, he got no case that he obtained an interim relief
against his removal from the office of Secretary of the
School Managing Committee as also the trusteeship, that
he filed the stated application for an order for
investigation only in April, 2017 together with absence of
a case that despite such removal he got a right to get
informed of the affairs of the school and also the trust,
would only support the said conclusion. For all these
reasons, we are of the considered view that this case
invites invocation of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the
Magistrate Court in the afore-stated application and all
further proceeding in pursuance thereof. Also, we have no
hesitation to hold that permitting continuance of the
criminal proceedings against the appellants in the
aforesaid circumstances would result in abuse of the
process of Court and also in miscarriage of justice.
12. In the result, the registration of FIR No.189 of 2017
dated 11.04.2017 at Madhyagram Police Station against
the appellants herein and all further proceeding based on
Page 28 of 29
the same qua the appellants are quashed and set aside.
13. The appeal is allowed as above.
……………………, J.
(Ajay Rastogi)
……………………, J.
(C.T. Ravikumar)
New Delhi;
January 30, 2023.
Page 29 of 29