Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 75
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 14585/2023
SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM
PATIL & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.14572/2023)
JAIPAL MANIKRAO HIRE
& ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VIJAYKUMAR VISHWANATH
DHAWALE & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
AND
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 14734-
14735/20 23)
SANJAY NATHMAL JAIN & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
& ANR. ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2024.01.30
18:22:24 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
SLP(Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 & Ors. Page 1 of 10
AND
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 15433/2023)
DR.SANJEEV RAMRAO CHAVAN …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
AND
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 15294/2023
DR.SANJEEV RAMRAO CHAVAN …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
& ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The premises in question were in the possession of
three tenants. However, for the present, we are
concerned with only two tenants, namely
Vijaykumar Vishwanath Dhawale and Vinod
Dodhu Chaudhary. As the third tenant had not
SLP(Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 & Ors. Page 2 of 10
filed any complaint and only the above two named
complainants have filed the complaint, that is why
the third tenant is not a party to the proceedings.
2. The premises in dispute were owned by one Rajeev
Ramrao Chavan. He sold the property to five
persons, namely Sanjay Nathmal Jain, Sunil
Mishrilal Jain, Manoj Mishrilal Jain, Ghanshyam
Bansilal Agrawal and Prasannachand Sobhagmal
Parakh, vide registered sale deed dated
27.10.2021. Unfortunately, Rajeev Ramrao
Chavan, the vendor of the sale deed dated
27.10.2021, died allegedly having committed
suicide on 08.03.2022 and having left behind a
suicide note, naming the tenants as abettors. On
the strength of the same, a complaint was made to
the local police. However, an accidental death was
1
registered, but no FIR was registered under
2
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
3. Soon thereafter, i.e., on 09.03.2022, the tenants
were called to the concerned Police Station. They
1
First Information Report
2
‘IPC’
SLP(Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 & Ors. Page 3 of 10
were held for about 24 hours, and in the meantime,
the premises in question were demolished by the
brother of the deceased-vendor, his widow, and
with the support of the local police. At the Police
Station, the tenants were also forced to sign some
documents, apparently giving their consent of
vacating the premises voluntarily.
4. The two tenants, Vijaykumar Vishwanath Dhawale
and Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary lodged complaint
initially with the Police Station, but as the same
was not acknowledged, they moved an application
before the concerned Magistrate under Section
3
156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . In the
complaint made by the two tenants, 13 accused
were named, namely Dr. Sanjeev Ramrao Chavan
i.e. brother of the deceased, Smita Rajeev Chavan
i.e. widow of the deceased, the five purchasers
mentioned above under the sale deed dated
27.10.2021, and six police personnel namely,
Shatrughna Atmaram Patil, Jaipal Manikrao Hire,
Milind Ashok Bhamare, Suryakant Raghunath
3
In short, “Cr.P.C.”
SLP(Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 & Ors. Page 4 of 10
Salunkhe, Nilesh Subhash More and Sunil Kautik
Hatkar.
5. The learned Magistrate, dealing with the Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. application, instead of directing the
police to register the FIR and investigate, passed an
order on 20.12.2022 for an inquiry under Section
202 Cr.P.C., confining it to the involvement of the
brother of the deceased, widow of the deceased,
and the five purchasers. This order of the
Magistrate was challenged by the
tenants/complainants before the Sessions Judge.
The Sessions Judge vide order dated 23.03.2023,
allowed the revision and directed that the
complaint filed before the Magistrate under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. be forwarded to the concerned Police
Station for registration and investigation.
6. The order of the Revisional Court dated 23.03.2023
was challenged before the High Court by all the 13
accused through separate petitions titled under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The High Court, while
deciding these petitions, not only approved the
SLP(Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 & Ors. Page 5 of 10
order of the Sessions Judge but also issued further
directions regarding investigation, by the
impugned order dated 23.10.2023. It is this order
which is under challenge before us by way of these
six petitions. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15433
of 2023 and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 15294
of 2023 have been filed by the brother of the
deceased with respect to the two complaints made
by the two tenants. Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
Nos. 14734-14735 of 2023 have been filed by the
five purchasers under the sale deed dated
27.10.2021 again with respect to the two
complaints filed by the two tenants. Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 and Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 14572 of 2023 have been filed by
the six police personnel again arising out of the two
complaints filed by the two tenants.
7. During the pendency of the petitions, it appears
that some settlement has been arrived at between
the complainants and the 13 accused. The
subsequent purchasers have paid an amount of Rs.
10 lacs to each of the tenants, and in lieu thereof,
the tenants have filed their affidavits stating that
SLP(Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 & Ors. Page 6 of 10
they do not wish to further prosecute their
complaint. The details of the bank drafts have also
been mentioned in the affidavits filed by the
tenants along with Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
No. 8150 of 2024 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
Nos. 14734-14735 of 2023. Based on this
settlement, it is prayed that these petitions may be
allowed, and the proceedings arising out of the two
criminal complaints under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
be quashed.
8. From the factual matrix as recorded above, we find
that the continuance of these two criminal
proceedings would not be of any avail once the
complainant has himself stated to withdraw the
complaint. Their losses having been compensated,
any further investigation or trial would be an
exercise in futility.
9. The compensation for the tenants has been given
by the subsequent purchasers, as stated in the
affidavits, apparently for the reason that they are
now the owners of the property and they have been
instrumental in carrying out the demolition
SLP(Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 & Ors. Page 7 of 10
illegally. The widow of the deceased (although not a
party before us) and the brother may not be having
any further interest inasmuch as the property had
already been sold by the deceased four and half
months prior to his death. However, what we are
not satisfied with is why the police personnel have
been allowed to go scot-free in a case where they
had an apparent roll in conspiring and in abetting
the crime of the illegal detention of the tenants,
coercing them to sign the document against their
will, and getting the premises in question
demolished without any order from a competent
Court.
10. We, accordingly, direct that the six police personnel
will suffer a cost of Rs. 6.0 lacs for each of the two
complainants. Out of the six police personnel, three
are constables, one is a Head Constable, one is a
Sub-Inspector, and one is an Inspector. They shall
suffer a cost of Rs. 50,000/- per Constable,
Rs.1,00,000/- by the Head Constable, Rs. 1.50 lacs
by the Sub-Inspector, and Rs. 2.0 lacs by the
Inspector, totalling Rs. 6.0 lacs for each case with
the above distribution. This amount shall be
SLP(Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 & Ors. Page 8 of 10
deposited in Account No. 90552010165915 of the
Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund,
Canara Bank, Branch South Block, Defence
Headquarters, within four weeks from today. After
depositing the said amount in the aforesaid fund,
they shall file proof of deposit with the Registry of
this Court within six weeks and also before the
Magistrate and the High Court. Upon deposit of the
said amount, the proceedings of the two complaint
cases shall stand quashed and closed.
11. We, however, make it clear that any observations
made and also the direction to suffer compensation
to the tenants by the six police personnel will not
be treated as adverse to their interest in
consideration of their promotions etc. that is to say
that this order may not be kept in their service
records.
12. It is further made clear that if the proof of deposit
is not filed within the stipulated time, these
petitions filed by the police personnel would stand
dismissed.
SLP(Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 & Ors. Page 9 of 10
13. In light of the above, Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
No. 15433 of 2023, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
15294 of 2023 and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.
14734-14735 of 2023 are allowed. Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 14572 of 2023 and Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 are also allowed,
subject to fulfilment of the aforesaid condition.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 30, 2024
SLP(Crl.) No. 14585 of 2023 & Ors. Page 10 of 10