Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1509 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3958 of 2016)
DILBAG RAI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
Leave granted.
This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated
11.2.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By
the impugned judgment, the High Court has quashed the
proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 210 dated 21.6.2014
registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”) at Police
Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.
The complainant is in appeal in these proceedings. The
case of the appellant is that on 1.12.2011, the accused, who is
impleaded as respondent No. 2, entered into an agreement to
sell a property admeasuring 8 marlas situated at Patti Jhabran,
behind Lucky Colony, Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. An amount
of Rs. 10 lakhs is said to have been paid at the time of
execution of the agreement to sell. The complaint states that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SUSHIL KUMAR
RAKHEJA
Date: 2018.12.06
14:33:06 IST
Reason:
though the agreement recites that possession of the property
was handed over, as a matter of fact, the possession was not
transferred.
2
Since the accused did not proceed to complete the
transaction, the appellant on 30.1.2014 filed an application
before the Superintendent of Police, District Kurukshetra for
registration of a complaint and for taking action against
respondent No. 2 and her husband Gurcharan Singh.
The case was referred to the Economic Crime Cell,
Kurukshetra. On enquiry, the Economic Crime Cell submitted its
report dated 4.3.2014 concluding that the dispute was of a
civil nature.
The appellant thereafter filed an application under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CrPC”)
and on the direction of the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate,
Kurukshetra, F.I.R. No. 210 was registered on 21.6.2014 at the
Police Station, Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.
The accused filed an application being CRM-M No. 35679 of
14 before the High Court for quashing the FIR on the ground
that the dispute was of a civil nature. During the course of
the investigation, the statement of the owner of the plot was
recorded on 27.10.2014 to the effect that the plot in fact
belongs to his wife Sushila.
Eventually after investigation, a chargesheet under
Section 173 CrPC was submitted by the Investigating Officer on
20.11.2014 for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Penal
Code.
Charges have been framed on 11.12.2014. The trial
commenced and five prosecution witnesses were examined.
The High Court by its impugned order dated 11.2.2016,
3
quashed the proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. on the ground
that on a plain reading of the FIR, the complainant had failed
to make out any criminal intent on the part of the accused.
Assailing the judgment of the High Court, it has been
submitted on behalf of the appellant that the High Court had
manifestly erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPc at this stage particularly when after due
investigation, the chargesheet has been filed and charges have
been framed. Moreover, it has also been submitted that a
criminal intent emerges from the fact that though the property
did not stand in the name of the accused it was sought to be
sold and in pursuance of the transaction, the appellant was
made to part with valuable consideration.
On 29.6.2016, notice was issued in these proceedings.
The office report indicates that service of notice is complete
on respondent No. 2. Despite service, none has appeared for
respondent No. 2.
The High Court was persuaded to quash the criminal
proceedings purely on the basis that the F.I.R. indicated that
the vendor had refused to execute the sale deed. On this basis,
the High Court held that there is no element of cheating and on
reading of the F.I.R., the complainant had failed to make out
any criminal intent on the part of the accused.
In arriving at this conclusion, the High Court, as would
appear from the narration of facts earlier, has lost sight of
crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the
investigation. The case of the complainant, it must be noted,
4
is that though the accused did not have title to the property,
she had dealt with the property and it was on that basis that
the complainant was induced to part with valuable
consideration.
Whether these allegations are true or otherwise is a
matter of trial.
The High Court, in our view, was not justified in taking
recourse to its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the
proceedings.
For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned order of the High Court dated 11.2.2016. However, we
clarify that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the
accusation which is a subject matter of the criminal trial.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
………………….…...…................J.
(DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)
…...………………………................J.
(M.R. SHAH)
NEW DELHI,
December 3, 2018
5
ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3958/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-02-2016
in CRM No. 35679/2014 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
At Chandigarh)
DILBAG RAI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 03-12-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
For Petitioner(s)
Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, Adv.
Mr. J.B. Mudgil, Adv.
Dr. Shivani, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR
Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
Manpreet K. Bhallu, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MANISH SETHI) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)