Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1284 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.6598 of 2008)
Ramesh Dutt & Ors. … Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment
and order dated 27.05.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.12308 of 2001 whereby and whereunder an application filed by them
purported to be under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
quashing a First Information Report lodged at the direction of Respondent
2
No.4 by the respondent No.2 on 23.3.2001 for the alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code has been dismissed.
3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The appellants are
members of the Managing Committee of Shastri Memorial School, Shivaji
Nagar, Ludhiana. The said society is registered under the Societies
Registration Act in the year 1982.
4. Allegedly, the land in question was said to have been transferred to
one Kahla Singh by the Tehsildar in the year 1977-78. He filed a suit being
Civil suit No.309 against his daughter-in-law wherein a decree
acknowledging a transfer in favour of the latter was passed. The appellants
are said to have made a representation before the concerned authority in
relation to the functioning of the school after passing of the aforementioned
decree came to their knowledge. It is stated that a report dated 14.1.1983
was submitted by the then Tehsildar (Sales), Ludhiana showing the school to
be an existing one whereafter the name of the appellants had been recorded
in the record of rights.
They filed a suit in the year 1990 praying for a decree for possession.
By reason of a judgment dated 15.3.1990, the said suit was decreed. In the
3
said suit, State of Punjab, Collector Ludhiana as well as the said Kahla
Singh were arrayed as defendants.
5. An order of mutation was thereafter passed in their favour which,
however, is said to have been cancelled. Indisputably, a proposal was
moved for lodging of a First Information Report.
6. Appellants sold a part of the land to M/s Everest Girls School.
Allegedly sale proceeds therefrom had been spent on construction of sixteen
rooms in the existing school. The vendees of the said premises, i.e., the M/s.
Everest School were threatened with dispossession by the supporters of
respondent Nos.3 and 5. A newspaper report to that effect also appeared in
‘Punjab Kesri’. They filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge, Ludhiana
wherein an order of status-quo was passed in the following terms :
“In the meantime defendants are restrained from
interfering in possession of the plaintiffs in
property comprised in Khasra No.12/9 khata
No.23/1571 as per Jamabandi for the years 1992-
93, situated at Village Saidan, Shivaji Nagar,
Ludhiana and further restraining the defendants
from interfering in the construction being raised by
the plaintiffs except in due course of Law till
21.12.1999.”
7. It appears that in a meeting held on 24.6.1999, the third respondent
raised a question with regard to the purported illegal transfer by the
4
appellants before the District Grievance Committee. However, it was stated
that he had obtained the legal opinion that no offence is made out. The
resolution adopted in the said meeting dated 24.6.1999 reads as under:
“Item No.15 Sh. Sat Pal Gausain, M.L.A.
submitted an application from the residents of
Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana regarding property
No.918/4 which is alleged to be under
unauthorized possession of some persons. S.S.P.
informed that about a year prior to it Managing
Committee of Shastri Memorial Model School sold
the land for a sum of Rs.9.85 lacs to Everest
School. The allegation in the application is that a
property has two different members. As per the
record, land purchased by the Managing
Committee Shastri Memorial Model School, bears
No.3849. After the investigation legal opinion has
opined that no offence is made out. This matter is
between the members of the Managing Committee
of the school and there is no action required on the
part of the police.
The matter may be re-investigated after
summoning both the parties and complete report
be submitted in the case made.”
8. The appellants also filed an application before the respondent No.4 on
18.9.2000 stating their bona fide in the matter besides pointing out the
interest of the students of the school. The Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana
issued notice to the school assessing the house tax. House Tax is being paid
by the appellants.
5
9. In the suit filed by the Everest School, applications were filed by the
supporters of respondent Nos.3 and 5 for their impleadment which were
dismissed.
However, in a meeting dated 11.9.2000, again a resolution was moved
wherein a decision was taken to lodge a First Information Report against the
appellants in the following terms :
“The Commissioner Municipal Corporation,
Ludhiana informed on the application submitted by
Sat Pal Gausain MLA on behalf of certain
residents of Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana regarding
illegal possession of some persons on property
No.918/4 that the land being ownership of
Rehabilitation Department no amount on the
construction can be spent.
The President ordered that accused who exchanged
the area, an FIR be registered against them and
necessary correspondence be made between
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ludhiana
and the item was deleted from the agenda.”
10. Pursuant to the said resolution, a First Information Report was lodged,
relevant portions whereof reads as under :
“From the above, it is clear that the civil court has
ordered for the possession by holding that
applicant committee is registered which is running
School; their possession will not be taken.
Meaning thereby that order of the Court was
regarding possession. Whereas the revenue
officials vide mutation No.38144 has changed the
6
ownership of the above property in favour of
Shastri Memorial Middle School Committee
registered which has been ordered as disputed by
the District Collector, Ludhiana vide his order
dated 15.9.1999 and in compliance with that order,
the revenue officer has cancelled the mutation. It
is worth mentioning here that Managing
Committee of the above school by selling the
property got the mutation changed and same has
been cancelled after the sanction of the mutation
No.38144. This land was sold to Pankaj Sharma
S/o Rajinder Kumar of Everest Educational
Society and its President was Rajinder Kumar
Sharma and the land after sale was mutated vide
mutation No.40762 (0-2-00-300 Sq. Yds), 40763
(0-1-17-275 Sq.yds) 40064 (0-2-13 400 Sq.yds)
because of cancellation of muatation No.38144
their sansity has also come in. Now, ownership of
this land vests in the Central Govt. Your attention
is invited to letter No.906/IPC dated 11.5.2000 and
the report that now the Central Govt. has been
shown as owner of this land. Sh. Jaspal Singh, the
then Halqa Patwari and Circle revenue officer
Jagdeep Singh are guilty as in order to usurp the
Govt. land, with dishonest attention in order to
give undue benefit to the members of the
Managing Committee of the School, have
sanctioned mutation against orders of the Court.
Similarly, these members of the Managing
Committee of the School who in connivance with
the revenue officers, have got the land transferred
in favour of the School and have further sold it to
Sh. Pankaj Sharma of Everest Educational Society
have cheated the Govt. when they were not lawful
owners of the land. In view of decision of the
Grievance Committee in its meeting dated
11.9.2000 all the above said accused are liable for
cheating including the members of the above
Society and along with predecessor. A case under
above said sections be registered and legal action
be taken. In this connection opinion of the District
7
Attorney, Ludhiana has been obtained and he has
opined that case under Sections
420/465/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B IPC
can be registered. You are hereby informed that
keeping in view order of District Grievance
Committee meeting held on 11.9.2000, necessary
case be registered against above said accused
persons and this office may be informed about the
action taken therein.”
11. The appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the said First Information
Report which by reason of the impugned order has been dismissed.
12. Mr. D.K. Bhatti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
would contend:
(i) The High Court committed a serious error in so far as it failed to take
into consideration that the admitted events would clearly and
unequivocally show that the First Information Report lodged by the
respondents was an act of mala fide on their part and based on
political consideration.
(ii) Appellants having obtained a decree in their favour, a criminal
proceeding would not be maintainable.
(iii) The contents of the first information report, even if given face value
and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not disclose an offence
8
cognizable far less under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 read with
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code..
13. Mr. Anil Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent, on the other hand, urged:
(i) The appellants having obtained a decree for permanent injunction
although they have no title in or over the property in question, could
not have transferred a portion thereof to M/s. Everest School.
(ii) In view of an attempt on the part of the appellants to get their names
mutated in the Revenue Records with the connivance of the Revenue
Authorities, the High Court must be held to be correct in declining to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
(iii) In view of the decisions of this Court laying down the law that the
first information report can be quashed only on limited grounds as for
example in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.
1 SCC 335], it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
14. Indisputably, the appellants, as members of the society, have been
running a school on the plot in question. They have obtained a decree in
9
their favour. The decree had not only been passed against the State but also
against the Collector and Shri Kahla Singh who had claimed his right, title
and interest in or over the said property.
Before us, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein it
has, inter alia, been stated that the title in respect of the lands in question are
with the Central Government.
The fact that respondents herein, acting in their official capacity, are
bound by the said decree is not in dispute.
15. Title in or over an immoveable property has many facets. Possession
is one of them. Unless there exists a statutory interdict, a person in
possession may transfer his right, title and interest in favour of a third party.
[See Vinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra [(2009) 2 SCC 532]
16. Mr. Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent,
may not be correct in contending that only because the order of mutation
made in favour of the appellants had been cancelled, the same ipso facto
would lead to the conclusion that they have no title over the property. It is
now a well settled principle of law that entry in a Revenue Record of rights
merely is an evidence of possession. [See Faqruddin (Dead) through LRs. v.
Tajuddin (Dead) through LRs. [(2008) 8 SCC 12].
10
17. Such an entry does not create title; absence thereof does not
extinguish the same. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the appellants
had committed acts of criminal misconduct while trying to obtain orders of
mutation but it is another thing to say that only because they filed such an
application, the same by itself would tantamount to commission of a
criminal offence. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion,
only because appellants are said to have transferred a portion of the property
without having complete ownership over them by itself do not satisfy the
ingredients of Sections 467, 468 and 469. This aspect of the matter is
covered by a recent decision of this Court in Devendra & Ors. v. State of
U.P. & Anr. [2007 (9) SCC 613].
18. We, however, make it clear that we do not intend to lay down a law
that the judgment of the Civil Court would be binding on a criminal court in
view of several decisions of this Court.
In Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad [2009 (5) SCALE 527], this
Court, while referring to a large number of decisions, held as under:
“18. It is now almost well-settled that, save and
except for Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act
which refers to Sections 40, 41, and 42 thereof, a
judgment of a criminal court shall not be
admissible in a civil court.”
11
The provisions of Section 41 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act do not
suggest that the decision of the Civil Court would be binding on the
Criminal Courts. Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, reads as under :
“44. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment,
or incompetency of Court, may be proved.—
Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show
that any judgment, order or decree which is
relevant under sections 40, 41 or 42 and which has
been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by
a Court not competent to deliver it, or was
obtained by fraud or collusion.”
The institution of a criminal case must be held to be an act of mala
fide on the part of the respondents in the aforementioned backdrop of events
which stand admitted. This case, therefore, satisfies some of the parameters
laid down in several sub-paras of paragraph 105 of Bhajan Lal (supra) which
read as under:
“105. 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 extra-ordinary 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
12
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, 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.
xxx xxx xxx
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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
xxx xxx xxx
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.”
19. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed. This Order,
13
however, may not be construed to be a judgment in respect of the right, title
and interest over the property in question.
……………………….J.
[S.B. Sinha]
`
……………………..…J.
[Deepak Verma]
New Delhi;
July 21, 2009