SAU. SARASWATIBAI vs. LALITABAI

1 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 118­119  OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4152­4153 of 2014] Sau Saraswatibai .. Appellant Versus Lalitabai & Ors.                 .. Respondents J U D G M E N T M. R. Shah, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment   and   orders   dated   22.11.2013   and   29.11.2013   in Criminal Application No.1113/2012 with Criminal Application No.919/2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, by which in exercise of powers under Section 482 of   the   CrPC,   the   High   Court   has   quashed   the   criminal proceedings   including   the   Final   Report   arising   out   of   Crime Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date: 2019.01.22 17:56:56 IST Reason: No.85   of   2011,   the   original   complainant   has   preferred   the present appeals. 2 3. That   the   appellant   herein­original   Complainant   filed   a Criminal Complaint against the private Respondents herein­ the original accused before the learned Magistrate alleging,  inter alia , that the complainant purchased a plot from Respondent No.1 by way of a registered sale deed in the year 2005.  After sale of the plot,  the   original   owner­accused  No.1   fraudulently  resold  the plot in 2010 in favour of Accused No.2 by re­designating as “Plot No.24”.  It is required to be noted that the plot which was sold to the   complainant   was   numbered   as   “Plot   No.1”   in   ”   Survey No.121”.  It was alleged that the very plot which was sold to the complainant was sold by the owner by changing the Number and by re­designating the same as “Plot No.24”.  It was alleged that the second purchaser Respondent No.2­Accused No.2 was none other   than   the   husband   of   the   original   Respondent   No.1­ Accused   No.1.     It   was   further   alleged   that   Respondent   No.2 thereon sold the very Plot/property in 2011, in favour of the Respondent No.3­Accused No.3.   Therefore, it was alleged that the   all   accused   persons   and   one   another   have   committed offences under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.  That the learned Magistrate passed an order for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC.   That the police lodged an FIR for the aforesaid offences.  That the accused 3 thereafter approached the High Court to quash the FIR  by way of a Petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC. 4 3.1 It appears that, by the time, the matter was taken up for final   hearing   by   the   High   Court,   the   Investigating   Officer completed the investigation in the matter and having found the prima   facie   case   against   the   accused,     submitted   the   Final Report   under   Section   173   of   the   Cr.PC   concluding   that   the accused had colluded and committed offences, as alleged, under Sections  420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.  Despite the fact that,  after conclusion of the investigation, a   Final   Report   under   Section   173   was   submitted,   by   the impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   22.11.2013,     the   High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC has quashed   the   criminal   proceedings   including   the   Final   Report arising out of Crime No.85 of 2011 dated 02.12.2011.  The High Court noted that the original Complainant also does not press the   prosecution   and   considered   the   statement   made   by   the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Original Accused that Plot No.1 of Original Complainant is distinct and has nothing to do with Plot No. 24. The High Court opined that there is no act of  criminality   to   cheat   the   complainant­the   purchaser   of   the property.     It   appears   that   immediately   thereafter   it   was mentioned before the High Court by the complainant that he desires to withdraw the statement made by him, which was the 5 basis for disposal of criminal application No.1113/2012.   By order dated 29.11.2013 the High Court declined withdrawal of the statement. 3.2 Being   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in quashing and setting   aside   the   criminal   proceedings   including   the   Final Report,   the   Original   Complainant   has   preferred   the   present appeals. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings and the Final Report, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC,  we are of the opinion that the impugned order quashing the proceedings cannot be sustained. 6 4.2 It is required to be noted that, as such, after the conclusion of   investigation,   the   Investigating   Officer   submitted   the   Final Report   under   Section   173   of   the   Cr.PC,   concluding   that   the accused have colluded and committed offences under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.  Once the Final Report was submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.PC, normally the accused, if aggrieved by the Final Report shall be relegated to approach the Magistrate for discharge.   Even the High Court in the impugned order has also observed so.  Despite the   above,   the   High   Court   has   without   further   discussing anything on merits of the Final Report has quashed the entire criminal proceedings, including the Final Report.   On reading of the impugned order and judgment passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has not even observed anything on merits of the Final Report and solely relying upon the statement of the counsel for the Accused as recorded in paragraph 4, has believed the same and has quashed the criminal proceedings and the Final Report.  Therefore, on merits also, the impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court deserve to be quashed and set aside.  At this stage, it is required to be noted that   there   was   no   explanation   as   to   why   the   original   Land Owner­Accused No.1 sold one plot to her husband (A2) first and 7 the   same   plot   was   sold   to   A3.     That,   in   the   facts   and circumstances   of   the   case,   once   the   Investigating   Officer submitted the Final Report on conclusion of the investigation, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the criminal proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC and particularly  when  in the   Final  Report  it  was   specifically concluded on the basis of the material on record that a prima facie   case   is   made   out   for   the   offences   alleged   against   the accused persons.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has clearly erred in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC  and in quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings including the Final Report. 4.3 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals succeed.   The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 22.11.2013 passed in Criminal Application   No.1113/2012   is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside. Consequently, the prosecution against the Accused to proceed further in accordance with law, and on its own merits. 8  5.  The appeals are allowed accordingly.  ………………………………………………J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO) ………………………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH) New Delhi, January 22, 2019