Full Judgment Text
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2019
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8143 of 2018)
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal and Others …Appellants
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another …Respondents
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. Leave granted. This appeal challenges the order dated 29.05.2018
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing application
preferred by the appellants under Section 482 CrPC being Application
No.22324 of 2011.
rd
2. Respondent No.2 filed Complaint No.3804 of 2009 in the Court of 3
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 02.12.2009 against
Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 namely his father, brother and brother-in-law. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MUKESH KUMAR
Date: 2019.01.11
16:50:43 IST
Reason:
main allegations as set out in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 of the Complaint
were as under:-
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
2
“3. THAT Complainant had purchased 2 folios
st
consisting of 100 shares of Reliance Industry. 1 folio
was in the name of the Complainant and accused no.2
nd
and 2 folio was in the joint names of accused no.2 and
complainant. The address in these shares is House no.
KC-102/2, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. Thereafter Reliance
company sent to complainant 100 shares in the year
1997 and 200 shares of their company in this year itself.
4. THAT all the accused in furtherance of their
conspiracy beat the Complainant and threw him out of
the house along with his children in the year 1998 for
mala fide reasons. They also forged signatures of
complainant in the years 1997 and 2006 and illegally
procured bonus shares and when complainant demanded
back his original shares and bonus shares from them,
they misbehaved with the complainant and refused to
disclose anything to him. The complainant is presently
living in Chiranjiv Vihar with his children for the sake
of lives of himself and his children and also to maintain
peace in the family.
5. THAT Folio number of the shares is 068119227
nd
and complainant is not aware of the number of 2 folio
and he will provide it later on whenever he comes to
know of it. Because all the shares are in the custody of
the accused. Not only this, 100 shares of M/s. Amrit
Banaspati Co. Ltd., belonging to Complainant, are also
in the custody of the accused.
7. THAT all the original shares had been handed
over to accused no.2 by the complainant after
purchasing them for safe custody.
10. THAT all shares of complainant are in custody of
accused and cost of the shares is approx. Rs.4.50 Lacs.”
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
3
3. It was thus alleged that the appellants had betrayed and cheated
Respondent No.2 and were guilty of offences punishable under Sections 406,
420, 467, 471, 323, 504, 506, 447 and 448 IPC. However, by his order dated
rd
18.06.2010 the 3 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad found that
no ground to summon the appellants for trial was made out and the complaint
being devoid of merits was liable to be dismissed under Section 203 CrPC.
The aforesaid order was, however, set aside in Criminal Revision No.179 of
2010 preferred by Respondent No.2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.2, Ghaziabad, who by his order dated 11.11.2010 remanded the matter
with a direction to pass fresh orders after granting an opportunity of hearing to
Respondent No.2. The appellants being aggrieved, preferred application
under Section 482 CrPC being Application No.9156 of 2011 in the High
Court. Said application was disposed of by the High Court on 23.03.2011
observing that if the appellants moved an application under Section 245(2)
CrPC the same be heard and disposed of expeditiously.
4. Accordingly, an application under Section 245(2) CrPC was moved by
the appellants. Paragraphs 6 to 15 of the application for discharge dealt with
acquisition of shares of Reliance Industries Ltd.
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
4
“6. THAT true and correct position is that an
application for allotment of 100 debentures of M/s.
Reliance Polythene Limited was given by the co-
applicant, Suresh Goyal in the year 1993. This
application was filed by him for allotment of shares
in the names of his sons i.e. Arun Kumar Goyal (i.e.
the complainant) and Devinder Kumar Goyal and
for which the said co-applicant had given a cheque
of his own bank.
7. THAT thereafter Reliance Polythene Limited
issued 100 debentures of their Company being
Debenture Nos. 004959401 to 004959500 vide
Master Folio No.68119227 and Certificate
No.0049595 on the basis of above application of
applicant Suresh Kumar Goyal on 15.4.1993.
8. THAT thereafter above said 100 debentures
were converted by M/s. Reliance Polythene Limited
into shares and accordingly issued 100 shares
bearing Share Nos.154702201 to 154702300 in the
names of Arun Kumar Goyal (i.e. the complainant)
and Devinder Kumar Goyal vide Master Folio
no.68119227 and Certificate No.00545523. It is
pertinent to mention here that conversion of
debentures into 100 shares vide Master Folio
No.68119227 was done by the above said company
in pursuance of their own policy and no application
for this conversion was ever given by the applicant.
9. THAT later on M/s. Reliance Polythene
Limited merged with M/s. Reliance Industries
Limited and thereafter 25 shares of this company in
lieu of above said 100 shares were allotted by the
company according to their policy bearing Share
Nos. 400314745 to 400314769 in the names of Arun
Kumar Goyal (i.e. complainant) and Devinder
Kumar Goyal vide Folio No.68119227 and
Certificate No.056387476. It is pertinent to mention
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
5
here that this conversion of shares into 25 shares
was also done by the Company under their own
policy. The above shares were issued under Folio
No.68119227.
10. THAT thereafter M/s. Reliance Industries
Limited issued 25 shares of their company in the
names of Arun Kumar Goyal (i.e. complainant) and
Devinder Kumar Goyal bearing Share
Nos.400314745 to 400314769 Folio No.68119227
and Certificate No.056387476.
11. THAT later on Reliance Industries Limited
divided its company into 4 companies, whose names
are mentioned hereinafter, under their Policy and
issued 50 shares each in the joint names of Arun
Kumar Goyal (i.e. complainant) and Devinder
Kumar Goyal –
(a) Reliance Energy Ventures Limited:
Folio No.001486420, Certificate No.
000148642, Share Nos.0007302483 to
0007302532 dated 27.1.2006 – Total No. of
shares 50.
(b) Reliance Communication Ventures
Limited: Folio No.001486420, Certificate No.
(Illegible) Share Nos. (Illegible) dated
(Illegible) – total no. of shares 50.
(c) Reliance Resources Limited: Folio
No.001486420, Certificate No.000148642,
Share Nos. 0007302483 to 0007302532 dated
27.1.2006 – Total No. of shares 50.
(d) Reliance Capital Ventures Limited:
Folio No.001486420, Certificate
No.000148642, Share Nos. 0007302483 to
0007302532 dated 27.1.2006 – Total No. of
shares 50.
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
6
12. THAT thereafter 3 new Companies were
formed in the names of Reliance Capital Limited,
Reliance Energy Limited and Reliance Power
Limited under the Company Policy after merging all
the above named 4 companies and following shares
were issued in the joint names of Arun Kumar Goyal
(i.e. complainant) and Devinder Kumar Goyal –
(a) M/s. Reliance Capital Limited: Master
Folio No.102341601, Certificate
No.016334160, share Nos. 0225139303 to
0225139305 = 2 Shares.
(b) M/s. Reliance Energy Limited: Master
Folio No.102341601, Certificate no.
015734160, share Nos.0213764143 to
0213764145 = 3 Shares.
(c) M/s. Reliance Power Limited: Master
Folio No.20148620, Certificate no. (Illegible),
share Nos. 23978999076 to 2397899087 = 12
Shares.
13. THAT thereafter M/s. Reliance Industries
Limited under its Company policy issued 50 bonus
shares in the joint names of Arun Kumar Goyal (i.e.
complainant) and Devinder Kumar Goyal vide Folio
No.608119227, Certificate No.622733328, Share
Nos.002226357219 to 00222357268 dated
28.11.2009.
14. THAT in this manner it would be apparent
from the above facts that 100 shares of Reliance
Industries Co.; 2 shares of Reliance Capital Limited;
3 shares of Reliance Energy Limited; and 12 shares
of Reliance Power Limited have been issued in the
joint names of Arun Kumar Goyal (i.e. complainant)
and Devinder Kumar Goyal. These shares were sent
by the company at House No.KC-102/2, Kavi
Nagar, Ghaziabad i.e. the address maintained in their
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
7
records. The originals of all the above shares are
available with Devinder Kumar Goyal. In this
manner, it would be apparent from the above that
neither the applicants nor the complainant have
purchased these shares from the open market. All
the shares have been allotted by the company in lieu
of the money paid by Suresh Kumar Goyal (i.e.
father of Arun Kumar Goyal and Devinder Kumar
Goyal) although these shares have been issued by
company in the joint names of Arun Kumar Goyal
and Devinder Kumar Goyal. None of the applicants
had given any application in writing for collecting
bonus shares nor any one of them ever attempted to
sell any of these shares. Therefore allegation of the
complainant that applicants have obtained bonus
shares by cheating and/or by forging his signatures,
is patently wrong and false and accused
emphatically deny the same. (illegible).
15. THAT it thus becomes evident from perusal of
above facts that no shares have been purchased by
Arun Kumar Goyal either from the Company or
from the open market.”
5. Similarly, the acquisition of shares of M/s. Amrit Vanaspati Company
Ltd. was also dealt with and it was asserted:-
“18. THAT all the above shares are in joint names.
It is pertinent to mention here that no one can either
sell or transfer the shares which are in the joint
names nor anyone can change the address, unless
and until both the shareholders agree and sign for
this.
19. THAT no other shares have been purchased
except the above shares. Therefore, the allegations
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
8
of complainant that he will furnish
details/information of one other folio as and when he
becomes aware of that, are patently wrong, false and
baseless and applicants emphatically deny such
allegations.
20. THAT it is thus evident from the above facts
that all the shares allotted by M/s. Reliance
Industries have been issued in the joint names of
Arun Kumar Goyal (i.e. complainant) and Devinder
Kumar Goyal. Resultantly Complainant and
Devinder Kumar Goyal have equal share in the
above shares. Originals of all these shares are in the
possession of Devinder Kumar Goyal.
21. THAT similarly shares allotted by M/s. Amrit
Vanaspati Company are also in the joint names of
Arun Kumar Goyal (i.e. complainant) and Devinder
Kumar Goyal and consequently both the
complainant and Devinder Kumar Goyal have equal
shares in them. The originals of these shares are
also in possession of Devinder Kumar Goyal.
22. THAT Anil Kumar Garg has absolutely
nothing to do with this case. He is the real Son-in-
law of Suresh Kumar Goyal and that is why he too
has been falsely implicated in this case.
23. THAT Suresh Kumar Goyal and Devinder
Kumar Goyal even offered the Complainant-Arun
Kumar Goyal to collect money of his half share in
the above shares after selling them in the open
market. But he is not ready for this offer. He is not
entitled to demand all the shares.”
6. The application for discharge was rejected by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Ghaziabad vide his order dated 14.06.2011.
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
9
While so rejecting, it was observed that sufficient grounds to frame charges
under Sections 420, 323 and 504 IPC were made out.
7. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellants by filing
application under Section 482 CrPC namely Application No.22324 of 2011.
The High Court noted the contentions on behalf of the appellants as under:
“As applicant no. 1 was not happy with the conduct
of the opposite party no.2, he disowned him and also
filed O.S. No.406 of 2007 in the court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Ghaziabad for a decree of
declaration. A criminal complaint was also initiated
by applicant no.1 against the opposite party no.2
under Sections 420, 406, 409, 321, 323, 385, 442
IPC.
… … …
On 2.12.2009, the opposite party no. 2 filed a
Complaint Case No.3884 of 2009 against the
applicants on the ground that opposite party no. 2
had purchased shares from the Reliance Industries in
the name of complainant and applicant no. 2. It is
further alleged in the complaint that in the year 1997
and in the year 2006 by making forged signature of
the complainant bonus shares were received by the
applicants and original shares were also in the
possession of the applicants. In spite of demand
same has not been handed over to the complainant.
It is further alleged in the complaint that applicants
with mala fide intention on 9.10.2007 sent a letter to
the company which was received to the company on
10.10.2007 and thereafter complainant on 15.8.2009
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
10
and 17.8.2009 sent mails to the company in this
regard.
It is submission of the learned counsel for the
applicants that shares were purchased by the
applicant no. 1, although they were also in the name
of opposite party no.2. At no point of time any
forgery has been committed and preparation of any
act cannot be termed as forgery.”
8. However, the High Court observed that in a petition under Section 482
CrPC disputed questions of fact could not be gone into and whether the shares
were purchased by the appellants or by Respondent No.2 was a matter of
evidence and as such no interference was called for. The aforesaid application
was thus dismissed by the High Court on 29.05.2018, which decision is
presently under challenge.
9. In support of the appeal, it was submitted that the instant complaint
was a counter blast after Appellant No.1 had disowned Respondent No.2 by
issuing an advertisement in the newspaper and swearing an affidavit to that
effect; and after he had filed a civil suit seeking injunction against Respondent
No.2 from coming to the house of the appellants and causing any hindrance;
and after a criminal complaint was filed by the Appellant No.1 against
Respondent No.2. It was submitted that as disclosed in the application under
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
11
Section 245(2) CrPC, the entire funding for acquisition of the shares in
question had come from Appellant No.1 in the year 1992-1993 when
Respondent No.2 was a youngster aged about 24 years. In support of the
assertion that the acquisition was from the funds of Appellant No.1, the
photocopies of the concerned bank accounts were also placed on record. On
the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 reiterated the
submission that the issue of ownership was essentially a question of fact
which had to be decided in the pending complaint and that the matter ought
not to be entertained in an application for discharge. In support of the
submission that Respondent No.2 had acquired those shares from his own
funds, reliance was placed upon a typewritten extract showing debit entries of
Rs.1250/-, Rs.1250/- and Rs.500/- dated 04.05.1993, 08.06.1994 and
15.10.1994 which extract was however without any details.
10. This Court adjourned the matter to enable the parties to arrive at an
amicable settlement whereafter the appellants agreed to withdraw all the cases
filed by them against Respondent No.2 on the condition that similar such
cases filed by Respondent No.2 against them also be withdrawn, giving
quietus to all the proceedings between the parties. Respondent No.2,
however, did not agree to the proposal.
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
12
11. The thrust of the allegations in the complaint is that the shares in
question were acquired from the funds of the complainant, though they have
always stood in the names of the complainant and his brother. It is also
accepted that the shares have always been in the custody of the father i.e.
Appellant No.1. Beyond mere allegation that the funds for acquisition came
from his bank account, nothing has even been suggested by the complainant.
The entries dated 04.05.1993, 08.06.1994 and 15.10.1994 relied upon by him
are much after the issuance of 100 debentures by Reliance Polythene Ltd. on
15.04.1993. As detailed in the application under Section 245(2) CrPC the
basic acquisition was these 100 debentures which investment, with the
passage of time, got converted and progressed to the present level. The
complainant was not even aware of these details. The allegations of beating
and intimidation are of the year 1998 and completely devoid of any substance.
The question is: are these aspects sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction to
discharge the appellants or should the appellants be made to go through the
rituals and rigour of trial.
12. While dealing with the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash
the proceedings at the stage of issuance of process, or at the stage of
committal, or at the stage of framing of charges, that is to say before the
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
13
commencement of actual trial, in the light of material placed on record by the
1
accused, this Court in Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor laid
down as under:-
“28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC, must make a just and
rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the
truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled
by the prosecution/complainant against the accused.
Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how
weighty the defences raised on behalf of the
accused are. Even if the accused is successful in
showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations
levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would
be impermissible to discharge the accused before
trial. This is so because it would result in giving
finality to the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/ complainant, without allowing the
prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence
to substantiate the same. The converse is, however,
not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the
accused is not subjected to any irreparable
consequences. The accused would still be in a
position to succeed by establishing his defences by
producing evidence in accordance with law. There
is an endless list of judgments rendered by this
Court declaring the legal position that in a case
where the prosecution/ complainant has levelled
allegations bringing out all ingredients of the
charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before
the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness
of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.
1
(2013) 3 SCC 330
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
14
29. The issue being examined in the instant case is
the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section
482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the
prosecution against an accused at the stage of
issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or
even at the stage of framing of charges. These are
all stages before the commencement of the actual
trial. The same parameters would naturally be
available for later stages as well. The power vested
in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the
stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-
reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate
the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without
allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead
evidence. Such a determination must always be
rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To
invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that
the material produced by the accused is such that
would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence
is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable
facts; the material produced is such as would rule
out and displace the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused; and the
material produced is such as would clearly reject
and overrule the veracity of the allegations
contained in the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/ complainant. It should be sufficient to
rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled
by the prosecution/complainant, without the
necessity of recording any evidence. For this the
material relied upon by the defence should not have
been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably
refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable
quality. The material relied upon by the accused
should be such as would persuade a reasonable
person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of
the accusations as false. In such a situation, the
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
15
judicial conscience of the High Court would
persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482
CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that
would prevent abuse of process of the court, and
secure the ends of justice.
30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing
paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps
to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment
raised by an accused by invoking the power vested
in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:
30.1. Step one : whether the material relied upon by
the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable
i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable
quality?
30.2. Step two : whether the material relied upon by
the accused would rule out the assertions contained
in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the
material is sufficient to reject and overrule the
factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the
material is such as would persuade a reasonable
person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of
the accusations as false?
30.3. Step three : whether the material relied upon
by the accused has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is
such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Step four : whether proceeding with the trial
would result in an abuse of process of the court,
and would not serve the ends of justice?
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
16
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the
affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High
Court should persuade it to quash such criminal
proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under
Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides
doing justice to the accused, would save precious
court time, which would otherwise be wasted in
holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising
therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same
would not conclude in the conviction of the
accused.”
13. In the present case the shares in question, right since the date of
acquisition have always been in the custody of Appellant No.1. The material
on record is absolutely clear that the acquisition was from the funds of
Appellant No.1. The complainant has merely alleged that the funds came
from his bank account but beyond such allegations no material has been
placed on record at any stage. The stand taken by the appellants in their
application under Section 245(2) CrPC is quite clear that the shares can be
sold in the market and the proceeds can be divided between Appellant No.2
and Respondent No.2. If Respondent No.2 is insisting on having complete
ownership in respect of the concerned shares, the matter must first be
established before a competent forum. We have considered the material on
record through the steps indicated in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor
(supra) and are convinced that the instant case calls for interference under
Criminal Appeal No.56 of 2019
Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
17
Section 482 CrPC. Further, from the facts that Appellant No.1 had disowned
Respondent No.2 and had filed civil proceedings seeking appropriate orders
against them, we are also convinced that the present criminal complaint is
nothing but an attempt to wreck vengeance against the father, brother and the
brother in law of the complainant. The instant criminal complaint is an abuse
of the process of Court and is required to be quashed.
14. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the orders passed by the
Courts below and allow the application for discharge under Section 245(2)
CrPC in complaint No.3804 of 2009 on the file of third Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
15. Since we have found that the initiation of complaint was not a bona
fide exercise, we direct Respondent No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
twenty five thousand only) within two months from today to each of the
appellants by way of costs for initiating frivolous litigation.
.………..………..…..……..……J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
..………...………….……………J.
(Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud)
New Delhi,
January 11, 2019.