Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 227
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1433 OF 2024
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10570 of 2023]
DR. SONIA VERMA & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellants before us are aggrieved by the order dated
19.07.2023 passed in CRM-M-34512-2023 (the ‘ Impugned
Order ’) whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh refused to quash FIR No. 375/2022 dated 31.10.2022
(the ‘ Subject FIR ’), registered against the Appellants for
offences under Section(s) 506, 420, 34, 120-B and 467 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the ‘ IPC ’).
Brief Facts:
3. The uncontested facts are as follows: (i) the Appellants are
doctors who are running the Surendra Maternity and Trauma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Khajuria
Date: 2024.03.20
14:14:05 IST
Reason:
Hospital (the ‘ Hospital ’), located in village Suthani, Tehsil
SLP (Crl.) No. 10570 of 2023 Page 1 of 7
Bawal, Rewari, Haryana; (ii) the Appellants were paying rent to
Respondent No. 2’s son at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month for
the Hospital property until August 2022; (iii) the original owner
of the land upon which the Hospital stands was Kaptan Singh i.e.,
husband of Respondent No. 2.
4. Thereafter, as per the Appellants version, vide registered
sale deed No. 1485 dated 23.08.2022 (the ‘ RSD ’), the Appellants
purchased the land on which the Hospital stood i.e., Khewat
No. l, Khatauni No. 1, Mustkil No. 33, Killa No. 26 , village
Suthani, Tehsil Bawal, Rewari, Haryana (the ‘ Suit Property ’),
for a sale consideration of Rs. 43,00,000/-, from one Sher Singh.
Pursuant to this purchase, the Appellants discontinued the
payment of rent to Respondent No. 2’s son.
5. Fearing dispossession from the Suit Property, the
Appellants filed Civil Suit No. 294/2022 on 27.09.2022, before
the Court of Addl. Civil Judge, Bawal, seeking a decree of
permanent injunction against Respondent No. 2, her husband and
one Babu Lal (the ‘ Civil Suit ’). In the Civil Suit, an order
granting ad-interim injunction was passed in favour of the
Appellants on 18.11.2022. While granting this protection, the
Court found that the Appellants had a prima facie case as they
had produced three registered sale deeds carrying similar
description of the Suit Property in order to establish the chain of
transfer leading to their ownership. As per the Appellants, the
SLP (Crl.) No. 10570 of 2023 Page 2 of 7
Suit Property was first transferred by Kaptan Singh to Babu Lal
vide Sale Deed dated 20.07.2020 and thereafter from Babu Lal to
Sher Singh vide Sale Deed dated 22.08.2022.
6. On 29.10.2022, FIR No. 372/2022 was registered by the
Appellants against three persons, including Kaptan Singh and son
of Respondent No. 2 for offences under Section(s) 506, 120-B of
the IPC. The Appellants alleged that the accused persons had
fraudulently collected rent from them for a prolonged period,
despite lacking ownership over the Suit Property and were
continuously threatening the Appellants to vacate the Suit
Property.
7. Two days later, the Subject FIR was registered against the
Appellants and Sher Singh by Respondent No. 2, who claimed
that she was the owner in possession of the land upon which the
Hospital stood, citing it as Killa No. 8, instead of Killa No. 26.
Respondent No. 2 stated that the property was transferred in her
favour by Kaptan Singh vide Transfer Deed dated 22.08.2017 and
that she has never alienated the property. She alleged that the
Appellants, in collusion with Sher Singh forged the RSD and
wrongly entered the area of the property in the RSD with the
intention of usurping her property.
8. A charge-sheet was filed in respect of the Subject FIR on
17.03.2023 and as on date, the Appellants have been granted
anticipatory bail by the High Court.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10570 of 2023 Page 3 of 7
9. The Appellants then approached the High Court under
Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the Subject FIR. Vide the
Impugned Order, the High Court held that the allegations relate
to Killa No. 8 in Mustkil No. 33, which the Appellants never
claimed to have purchased. On this basis, the Court held that the
ingredients of the offences alleged were made out against the
Appellants and consequently, the application for quashing was
dismissed.
Contentions & Analysis:
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants forcefully contends
that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature
and as the appropriate civil remedy is already being pursued by
the Appellants, the criminal proceedings arising out of the
Subject FIR amount to an abuse of the process of law. In this
context, it is also urged that the High Court erred in failing to
consider the litigation history between the parties i.e., the
pending Civil Suit and the FIR filed by the Appellants against the
family of Respondent No. 2.
11. Per Contra , Learned Counsel for the State of Haryana
submits that there exists sufficient prima facie evidence for the
Trial Court to proceed against the Appellants and that the mere
existence of a civil profile does not justify quashing of criminal
proceedings.
SLP (Crl.) No. 10570 of 2023 Page 4 of 7
12. It is pertinent to note that despite being served, Respondent
No. 2 has not contested the matter before us.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the dispute herein,
which forms the genesis of the criminal proceedings initiated by
Respondent No. 2 is entirely civil in nature i.e., whether the
Appellants are in lawful possession of the Suit Property or, in
essence, whether the RSD is valid. To that extent, the Appellants
have already taken recourse to the appropriate civil remedy to
establish their claim before the Civil Court. The grievance of
Respondent No. 2 i.e., whether the RSD is forged and fabricated
is an issue that will be considered by the Civil Court while
making its determination.
15. A closer examination of the surrounding facts and
circumstances fortifies the conclusion that an attempt has been
made by the Respondent No. 2 to shroud a civil dispute with a
cloak of criminality. The following aspects of the case are
pertinent to note: (i) Respondent No. 2 registered the Subject FIR
subsequent to the filing of the Civil Suit and the filing of FIR No.
372/2022 by the Appellants; (ii) the chain of sale deeds produced
by the Appellants contain identical descriptions of the Suit
Property and yet Respondent No. 2 has pursued criminal action
only against the Appellants and Sher Singh and not against
SLP (Crl.) No. 10570 of 2023 Page 5 of 7
Babu Lal and her husband; (iii) Respondent No. 2 has failed to
contest the present matter before this Court; (iv) the admitted
position that the Appellants were bonafide in their payment of
rent before their alleged purchase of the Suit Property.
16. This Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand &
1
Ors . has expounded on the scope of exercise of power under
Section 482 CrPC whilst dealing with similar matters:
“7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code 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 otherwise to secure ends of justice.
Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or
not depends upon the nature of 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 criminal proceedings to prevent
abuse of process of court.”
17. Therefore, when the High Court was apprised of such a
matter wherein the substance of the criminal complaint served
only to cast doubt on the validity of a commercial transaction
1
Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2012
SLP (Crl.) No. 10570 of 2023 Page 6 of 7
(in this case, a sale deed for the transfer of property), and the
appropriate civil remedy was already being pursued, the High
Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings.
18. For the reasons stated above, the Impugned Order is set
aside and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the
Subject FIR are quashed and set aside. Needless to say, this order
shall not have any effect on the Civil Suit pending between the
parties and the same shall be decided in accordance with law.
19. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed.
20. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
MARCH 07, 2024
SLP (Crl.) No. 10570 of 2023 Page 7 of 7