Supreme Court of India
DILBAG RAI versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. on 3 December 2018
1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1138
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1138
A
DILBAG RAI
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2018)
DECEMBER 03, 2018
B
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of FIR/criminal proceedings under – On facts, proceedings arising out ofCF.I.R. registered u/ss. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC –Quashed by the High Court on the ground that the complainanthad failed to make out any criminal intent on the part of the accused– Justification of – Held: High Court was not justified in takingrecourse to its power u/s. 482 to quash the proceedings – HighCourt lost sight of crucial aspects which emerged during the courseDof the investigation – It was complainant’s case that though theaccused did not have title to the property, she had dealt with theproperty and it was on that basis that the complainant was inducedto part with valuable consideration – Furthermore, the correctnessof these allegations is a matter of trial – Thus, the order of the HighCourt is set aside.E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 1509 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2016 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 35679 of 2014.
Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, J. B. Mudgil, Dr. Shivani, Rameshwar PrasadGoyal Advs. for the Appellant.
F
Vishwa Pal Singh, Vijay Kumar, Dr. Monika Gusain, ManpreetK. Bhallu, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GDR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 11.2.2016passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the impugnedjudgment, the High Court has quashed the proceedings arising out of H
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”) atPolice Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.
3. The complainant is in appeal in these proceedings. The case ofthe appellant is that on 1.12.2011, the accused, who is impleaded asrespondent No. 2, entered into an agreement to sell a propertyadmeasuring 8 marlas situated at Patti Jhabran, behind Lucky Colony,Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. An amount of Rs. 10 lakhs is said tohave been paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. Thecomplaint states that though the agreement recites that possession ofthe property was handed over, as a matter of fact, the possession wasnot transferred.
4. Since the accused did not proceed to complete the transaction,the appellant on 30.1.2014 filed an application before the Superintendentof Police, District Kurukshetra for registration of a complaint and fortaking action against respondent No. 2 and her husband Gurcharan Singh.
5. The case was referred to the Economic Crime Cell,Kurukshetra. On enquiry, the Economic Crime Cell submitted its reportdated 4.3.2014 concluding that the dispute was of a civil nature.
6. The appellant thereafter filed an application under Section 156(3)of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CrPC”) and on the direction ofthe Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, Kurukshetra, F.I.R. No. 210 was registeredon 21.6.2014 at the Police Station, Shahabad Markanda, DistrictKurukshetra.
7. The accused filed an application being CRM-M No. 35679 of14 before the High Court for quashing the FIR on the ground that thedispute was of a civil nature. During the course of the investigation, thestatement of the owner of the plot was recorded on 27.10.2014 to theeffect that the plot in fact belongs to his wife Sushila.
8. Eventually after investigation, a chargesheet under Section 173CrPC was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 20.11.2014 foroffences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code.
9. Charges have been framed on 11.12.2014. The trial commencedand five prosecution witnesses were examined.
10. The High Court by its impugned order dated 11.2.2016, quashedthe proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. on the ground that on a plainreading of the FIR, the complainant had failed to make out any criminalintent on the part of the accused.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A
A11. Assailing the judgment of the High Court, it has been submittedon behalf of the appellant that the High Court had manifestly erred inexercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPc at this stage particularlywhen after due investigation, the chargesheet has been filed and chargeshave been framed. Moreover, it has also been submitted that a criminalintent emerges from the fact that though the property did not stand in theBname of the accused it was sought to be sold and in pursuance of thetransaction, the appellant was made to part with valuable consideration.
12. On 29.6.2016, notice was issued in these proceedings. Theoffice report indicates that service of notice is complete on respondentNo. 2. Despite service, none has appeared for respondent No. 2.
C
13. The High Court was persuaded to quash the criminalproceedings purely on the basis that the F.I.R. indicated that the vendorhad refused to execute the sale deed. On this basis, the High Court heldthat there is no element of cheating and on reading of the F.I.R., thecomplainant had failed to make out any criminal intent on the part of theDaccused.
14. In arriving at this conclusion, the High Court, as would appearfrom the narration of facts earlier, has lost sight of crucial aspects whichhave emerged during the course of the investigation. The case of thecomplainant, it must be noted, is that though the accused did not havetitle to the property, she had dealt with the property and it was on thatEbasis that the complainant was induced to part with valuable consideration.
15. Whether these allegations are true or otherwise is a matter of trial.
16. The High Court, in our view, was not justified in taking recourseto its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.F
17. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside theimpugned order of the High Court dated 11.2.2016. However, we clarifythat we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the accusation whichis a subject matter of the criminal trial.
18. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.G
19. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal disposed of.
H