Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 278
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1565-1567 OF 2024
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 8829-8831 of 2016]
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SHILPA JAIN & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Introduction
1. The present appeals arise out of a common order dated
14.01.2016 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (the
“ High Court ”) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case bearing numbers
(i) 6972 of 2015; (ii) 6981 of 2015; and (iii) 7663 of 2015,
whereunder the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“ CrPC ”)
quashed (i) a First Information Report bearing number 551 of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Khajuria
Date: 2024.05.20
12:39:03 IST
Reason:
2015 dated 25.07.2015 registered at PS Khategaon, Dewas (the
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 1 of 14
“ FIR ”) under Section(s) 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the “ IPC ”); and (ii) the criminal
proceedings emanating thereof (the “ Impugned Order ”).
Factual Background
2. The facts and proceedings germane for contextual
understanding of the present lis , are as follows:
2.1. An underlying dispute ensued between the Nagar Palika,
Khategaon (the “ Original Plaintiff ”) and the Respondents
in relation to an identified property situated at Kasba
Khategaon, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh (the “ Suit
Property ”). Accordingly, a civil suit bearing number 114A
of 1988 seeking inter alia possession of the Suit Property
nd
was preferred by the Original Plaintiff before the 2
Additional District Judge, Dewas (the “ Trial Court ”) (the
“ Civil Suit ”). Subsequently, vide an order dated
23.01.1991, the Civil Suit came to be dismissed observing
inter alia that the Original Plaintiff failed to prove its’ title
qua the Suit Property (the “ Underlying Decree ”).
2.2. Thereafter, an appeal i.e., First Appeal No. 102 of 1991
was preferred by the Original Plaintiff before the High
Court (the “ Appeal ”). Vide an order dated 07.04.1998, the
High Court upheld the Underlying Decree and held that the
Suit Property was constructed on land originally vested in
the erstwhile Holkar State which subsequently came to be
recorded in the revenue records as nazul land belonging to
the State Government of Madhya Pradesh (the
“ Underlying Order ”). Pertinently, the Underlying Order
was assailed before a Division Bench of the High Court by
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 2 of 14
way of Letter Patent Appeal (“ LPA ”) No. 357 of 2005,
however vide an order dated 07.09.2005, the aforesaid LPA
came to be dismissed.
2.3. The dispute between the parties seemingly attained
finality, however, pursuant to a complaint received on
17.02.2015, an investigation was carried out by the
Tehsildar, Khategaon, whereunder it was revealed that 11
(eleven) sale transactions had been carried out by private
persons in respect of the Suit Property i.e., nazul land
belonging to the State Government of Madhya Pradesh.
Notably, the investigation also revealed that the aforesaid
transactions were carried out fraudulently i.e., (i) without
the requisite documentation and / or on the basis of forged
and fabricated documentation; (ii) on the basis of an
erroneous certificate dated 21.06.2010 issued by the
Original Plaintiff; and (iii) in connivance with certain
identified government officials. Accordingly, in view of
the aforesaid, a complaint dated 25.07.2015 came to be
furnished by the Tehsildar, Khategaon to the investigating
agencies (the “ Complaint ”).
2.4. In furtherance of the Complaint, the FIR came to be
registered by the investigating agencies against 22
(twenty-two) persons including inter alia the Respondents.
Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, application(s)
came to be preferred under Section 482 CrPC before the
High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR (the
“ Quashing Petition ”). Vide the Impugned Order, the High
Court quashed the FIR and the proceeding(s) emanating
thereof. The operative paragraph(s) of the Impugned Order
are reproduced as under:
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 3 of 14
“05. Considering the above submissions
and the evidence on record in the form of
the judgments of the trial Court as well as
the appellate Court that the respondent-
state has been unable to prove its title. The
suit as well as the appeal have been
dismissed and in this light filing of
criminal proceedings as alleged by the
Counsel for the petitioners is nothing but
a ploy to subjugate the petitioners. It has
ben consistently stated by the Counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners are in
possession of the said land for more than
90 years and Counsel has relied on
several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex
Court as well as this Court in the matter
of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs.
State of Bihar and another [(2009) 8 SCC
751], Ramesh Dutt and others Vs. State
Punjab and others [(2009) 15 SCC 429],
Rajib Ranjan and others Vs. R
Vijaykumar [(2005) 1 SCC 513], Mr.
Stephen V. Gomes and another [2015 (II)
MPWN 149], Savitri Pandey and another
v. State of UP and others [AIR 2015 SC
2501], AK Sharma (Cdr.) vs. State of MP
2015(3) JLJ 213 and Chandran
Ratnaswami Vs. KC Palanisamy and
others [2013 (6) SCC 740] to state that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble
Court have repeatedly held and quashed
FIR and criminal proceedings relating to
a dispute of title of property and other civil
disputes and Counsel prayed for
quashment of the FIR.
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 4 of 14
06. Besides Counsel also submitted that
there was no allegation against the
petitioners regarding their having forged
any document or their having manipulated
any documents or cheating. Then under
the circumstances offences could not be
made out against the petitioners. Counsel
has vehemently urged that the action of the
Tehsildar in lodging the FIR and
registration of the offences is a gross
misuse of the power and invoking the
criminal law and procedure is purely
contrary to the principles of natural
justice as well as the provisions of the law
since civil proceedings established title
and the State has lost on both these counts.
07. Hence, I find that a judicial process
should not be an instrument of oppression,
or, needless harassment. The Apex Court
has in several cases warned that
Authorities should be circumspect and
judicious in exercising discretion and
should take all relevant facts and
circumstances into consideration before
issuing process; otherwise the process
would become a mere instrument in the
hands of the private complainant to seek
vendetta and short circuit a procedure of
law. Especially, in the present case the
civil matters are still pending
consideration and placing reliance on
Suneet Gupta Vs. Anil Triloknath
Sharma and others 2008 (11) SC 670 I
find that the FIR needs to be quashed
primarily on the ground that the dispute is
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 5 of 14
purely civil in nature and the complaint
amounts to an abuse the process of law.
The impugned FIR stands hereby quashed.
The petitions are, therefore, allowed.”
2.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Impugned Order, the present
appeal came to be preferred by the Appellant.
2.6. It would also be apposite to mention that during the
pendency of the present appeal, certain proceeding(s)
ensued before the Revenue Court i.e., eviction proceedings
under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue
Code, 1959 (the “ Code ”) came to be instituted by the
Tehsildar, Khategaon against certain Respondents. The
aforesaid proceedings were decided against the
Respondents by (i) the Tehsildar, Khategaon; (ii) the Sub-
Divisional Commissioner; and (iii) the Additional
Commissioner. Thereafter a revision petition i.e., revision
no. 3140/2019/Devas/L.R,was preferred before the Board
of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly, v ide an order
dated 26.10.2018, the aforesaid proceedings came to be
decided in favour of the Respondents (the “ Revenue
Board Order ”). Subsequently, a rectification order dated
02.09.2020 came to be passed by the Ld. Sub-Divisional
Office, Khategaon, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh whereunder
the Suit Property was directed to be recorded as ‘ abadi
land’ as against ‘ nazul government land’ in the relevant
revenue records (the “ SDO Order ”) (hereinafter (i) the
Revenue Board Order; and (ii) the SDO Order shall
collectively be referred to as the “ Revenue Proceedings ”).
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 6 of 14
Contentions
3. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Appellant i.e., the State of Madhya Pradesh, urged the
following:
3.1. The High Court proceeded on an erroneous premise i.e.,
that the State of Madhya Pradesh was unable to prove its
title qua the Suit Property in the Civil Suit; and
consequently, on the aforesaid flawed premise, the High
Court proceeded to quash the FIR and the proceedings
emanating thereof by labelling the same as vexatious.
Whereas, on the contrary, the Underlying Decree passed in
the Civil Suit categorically recorded that the Suit Property
vested in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
3.2. The allegations levelled against the accused persons in the
FIR, prima facie reveal the commission of a cognizable
offence - which ought not to have been scuttled by the High
Court exercising its jurisdiction under 482 of the CrPC in
view of the seriousness of the allegation(s).
3.3. Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents, brought forth the following contentions:
3.4. The underlying dispute was of a civil nature which stood
adjudicated in favour of the Respondents i.e., in this regard,
reliance was placed upon the Revenue Proceedings to
contend that the Suit Property was rightly determined to
form a part of private land which was validly transferred
inter se the Respondents.
3.5. The foundation of the FIR contemplated that the Suit
Property belonged to State of Madhya Pradesh – however
the aforesaid premise is no longer valid - as according to
Mr. Jain, the title of the Suit Property has been adjudicated
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 7 of 14
to vest in the Respondents by the Board of Revenue,
Madhya Pradesh and the SDO in the Revenue Proceedings.
Analysis and Findings
4. Having heard the learned counsel(s) appearing on behalf
of the parties; and having perused the materials on record, we
find ourselves tasked with determining whether the High Court
ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC
to quash the FIR?
5. As a precursor, it would be relevant to refer to the
principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 of the CrPC vis-à-vis the quashing of an
FIR. This Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335 observed as under:
“ 102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating
to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise,
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 8 of 14
clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(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
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 9 of 14
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.
103 . We also give a note of caution to the
effect that the power of quashing a
criminal proceeding should be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection
and that too in the rarest of rare cases;
that the court will not be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint and that the extraordinary or
inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act
according to its whim or caprice.”
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 10 of 14
6. We have carefully perused the Underlying Order passed by
the High Court in the Appeal. The Civil Suit was initiated by the
Original Plaintiff i.e., Nagar Palika, Khategaon, against 2 (two)
private individuals. Accordingly, vide the Underlying Decree, the
Trial Court dismissed the Civil Suit, however, categorically
found that the Suit Property belonged to the State of Madhya
Pradesh. This finding was upheld by the High Court in the
Underlying Order.
7. At this juncture it would also be appropriate to deal with
the reliance placed by Mr. Jain on the Revenue Proceedings to
contend that title qua the Suit Property now vested with the
Respondents and accordingly it was submitted that, reopening
and / or initiating criminal proceedings would result in an abuse
of process of law. However, we find ourselves unable to accept
Mr. Jain’s contention qua the title of the Suit Property. It is trite
law that revenue records are not documents of title; and nor
would any findings pursuant to revenue proceedings under the
Code confer any rights, title or interest upon the Respondents in
relation to the Suit Property. It is a settled legal position that
questions of title can only be determined by a civil court of
competent jurisdiction. Thus, the reliance placed on the Revenue
Proceedings is misplaced and would be of no assistance to the
Respondents.
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 11 of 14
8. The sequitur to the aforesaid discussion is that the High
Court proceeded on an erroneous assumption i.e., that the State
of Madhya Pradesh failed to prove its title qua the Suit Property.
9. In the aforesaid context, we now must proceed to deal with
the issue framed by us in Paragraph 4 of this Judgement. The
facts of the case reveal that the High Court chose to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC on the assumption that
the Suit Property did not vest in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
However, as we have held to the contrary, we consider it
appropriate to independently consider whether the allegations
levelled against the Respondents under the FIR would satisfy any
of the indicative parameters laid down by this Court in Bhajan
Lal (Supra) warranting interference by the High Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC vis-à-
vis the quashing of an FIR.
10. Additionally, we are conscious of the interplay between
civil disputes and criminal proceedings, in this regard we find it
appropriate to refer to a decision of this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim
v. State of Bihar , (2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein this Court observed
as under:
“8. This Court has time and again drawn
attention to the growing tendency of the
complainants attempting to give the cloak
of a criminal offence to matters which are
essentially and purely civil in nature,
obviously either to apply pressure on the
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 12 of 14
accused, or out of enmity towards the
accused, or to subject the accused to
harassment. Criminal courts should
ensure that proceedings before it are not
used for settling scores or to pressurise
parties to settle civil disputes. U (See G.
Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC
636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] and Indian Oil
Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC
736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] ) Let us
examine the matter keeping the said
principles in mind.”
11. Having considered the materials on record, we are of the
considered opinion that neither does the present case satisfy any
of the parameters laid down by this Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra)
warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
CrPC vis-à-vis the quashing of an FIR; and nor can the
allegation(s) levelled against the accused person(s) be classified
as ‘purely civil in nature’ or merely ‘cloaked as a criminal
offence’. Undoubtedly, the genesis of the present dispute
emanates from civil proceedings qua the possession of the Suit
Property, however, the dispute in its current avatar i.e. as is
discernible from the allegation levelled against the Respondents
in the FIR, has certainly undergone a metamorphosis into a
criminal dispute which ought not to have been scuttled at the
threshold, and in fact ought to have been considered on its own
merits, in accordance with law.
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 13 of 14
Directions and Conclusions
12. In view of aforesaid, the appeals succeed and are allowed.
The Impugned Order passed by High Court is hereby set aside.
The Appellant i.e., State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to
proceed in accordance with law in relation to the FIR bearing
number 551 of 2015 dated 25.07.2015 registered at PS
Khategaon, Dewas.
13. It is clarified that the observations made in this judgement
are relevant for the purpose of testing the correctness of the
Impugned Order. None of the observations made by us shall have
any bearing on the consequential criminal proceedings (if any).
14. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 05, 2024
CRL. APPEAL NOS.1565-67 of 2024 Page 14 of 14