Supreme Court quashes criminal case against landlords in property dispute: Vishnu Kumar Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) INSC 1026 (28 November 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1026

Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Can a criminal case for house-trespass stand when the alleged tenant’s claim is based on a document that appears to be forged? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, highlighting the importance of protecting individuals from unnecessary criminal prosecution. The case involved a dispute between a landlord and a tenant, where the tenant filed a criminal case against the landlord for allegedly trespassing on the property. The Supreme Court, after examining the facts and legal precedents, quashed the criminal proceedings against the landlords. The judgment was authored by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

Case Background

The dispute began when Ram Kumar Garg (R2), claimed to be a tenant of a shop owned by Hari Narayan Shukla. On 29 June 2011, Vishnu Kumar Shukla (A1) and Vineeta Shukla (A2), along with others, allegedly locked the shop from inside, broke the wall, and looted goods. Following this incident, R2 filed a First Information Report (FIR) on 1 July 2011, with the Hazratganj Police Station, alleging offenses under Sections 448, 454, and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The FIR stated that the appellants had broken into his shop and stolen wheat, cash, kerosene oil, shop registers, documents, and a two-wheeler.

A2 claimed to be the rightful owner of the shop, having purchased it through a registered Sale Deed. R2, on the other hand, claimed tenancy based on a ‘Memorandum of Agreement of Tenancy’ dated 24 November 2005. However, the appellants argued that this document was forged because it contained the Indian Rupee symbol (₹), which was officially adopted only in 2010.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellants under Section 448 of the IPC, while not finding any case under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, rejected the appellants’ plea for discharge on 2 June 2017. The appellants then approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which also dismissed their plea on 2 August 2017, upholding the lower court’s decision. The High Court did not provide specific reasons for denying the discharge. Aggrieved by this, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around several key legal provisions:

• Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for house-trespass. It states, “Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
• Section 454 of the IPC: This section pertains to lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit an offense punishable with imprisonment. It states, “Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to ten years.”
• Section 380 of the IPC: This section addresses theft in a dwelling house. It states, “Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section outlines the procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195, dealing with offenses against the administration of justice. It allows a court to initiate an inquiry into offenses such as perjury.
• Section 463 of the IPC: This section defines forgery. It states, “Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.”
• Section 482 of the CrPC: This section saves the inherent powers of the High Court, enabling it to make orders to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
• Sections 239-240 of the CrPC: These sections deal with the procedure for discharge and framing of charges in warrant cases instituted on a police report.
• Section 245 of the CrPC: This section deals with the discharge of the accused in warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report.
• Sections 227-228 of the CrPC: These sections pertain to discharge and framing of charges in trials before a Court of Session.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that the FIR was frivolous and aimed to prevent them from enjoying their property. They asserted that A2 was the rightful owner of the shop through a registered sale deed.
• They contended that R2’s claim of tenancy was based on a forged ‘Memorandum of Agreement of Tenancy’ dated 24 November 2005, which included the Indian Rupee symbol (₹), adopted only in 2010.
• The appellants highlighted that R2 had filed a civil suit based on this forged document, and they had filed an application under Section 340 of the CrPC for perjury.
• They pointed out that the police did not find any evidence for offenses under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC, and R2 did not object to this. This, they argued, indicated that R2 was not in possession of the property.
• The appellants submitted that the Trial Court and the High Court had rejected their discharge application without providing adequate reasons, despite clear evidence of forgery.

Respondent-State’s Submissions:

• The State opposed the appellants’ plea for discharge and supported the High Court’s decision.
• The State’s counsel sought dismissal of the appeal, arguing that the lower courts’ decisions were correct.

Respondent No. 2 (R2): Did not appear before the Supreme Court despite service of notice.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the criminal case against the appellants under Section 448, IPC, is sustainable when the tenant’s claim of possession is based on a forged document.
• Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the Trial Court’s order rejecting the appellants’ discharge application.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Ajoy Kumar Ghose v State of Jharkhand, (2009) 14 SCC 115:* The Court relied on this case to highlight the Magistrate’s power to discharge an accused at any stage if the charge is groundless.
• Minakshi Bala v Sudhir Kumar, (1994) 4 SCC 142:* The Court expressed reservations about the limitations imposed by this judgment on a court’s power to intervene and prevent injustice, but did not find it necessary to refer the matter to a larger bench.
• Rumi Dhar v State of West Bengal, (2009) 6 SCC 364:* The Court used this case to emphasize the need for a detailed examination of allegations before framing charges.
• State of Tamil Nadu v N Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709:* The Court referred to this case to highlight the common approach under Sections 227 and 239 of the CrPC.
• State of Bihar v Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of India v Prafulla K Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4; Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v Dilip N Chordia, (1989) 1 SCC 715; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v Jitendra B Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76; Dilawar B Kurane v State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135; Chitresh K Chopra v State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605; Amit Kapoor v Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460; Dinesh Tiwari v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 137; Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547; and State (NCT of Delhi) v Shiv Charan Bansal, (2020) 2 SCC 290:* The Court considered these cases as laying down the principles for considering discharge applications.
• State of Gujarat v Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 INSC 894:* The Court used this case to discuss the judicial mind application for determining whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial.
• Priyanka Mishra v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 INSC 729:* The Court cited this case to emphasize the need to protect individuals from vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and the Trial Court’s order. The appellants were discharged from the criminal case, and their bail bonds were cancelled. The Court clarified that its judgment would not influence any pending civil proceedings between the parties.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The fact that the ‘Memorandum of Agreement of Tenancy’ was likely forged, as it contained the Indian Rupee symbol (₹) which was adopted only in 2010, while the document was dated 2005.
• The lack of any other evidence to support R2’s claim of possession.
• The police’s failure to find evidence under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC, and R2’s lack of objection to this.
• The Trial Court and the High Court’s failure to provide adequate reasons for denying the discharge application.
• The need to protect individuals from vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution.

The court emphasized that the criminal case was an abuse of the process of law and that the appellants should not be subjected to a full-fledged criminal trial based on such flimsy grounds. The court also noted that the High Court should have intervened to discharge the appellants.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, stating that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicated that the criminal case was an abuse of the process of the court. The Court emphasized that the appellants, being the undisputed landlords, should not be subjected to a criminal trial based on a forged document.

“The fact is that the Indian National Rupee symbol i.e., ₹ was not in existence during the time the purported ‘Memorandum’ was signed.”

“Furthermore, R2 has based his entire claim of tenancy on a document which has been, prima facie, found to be forged and fabricated, for which the Court concerned has directed lodging of a criminal case.”

“We are of the firm view that A2 being the undisputed landlord, the criminal case filed by R2, in the facts and circumstances supra, amounts to clear abuse of the process of the Court.”

Key Takeaways

• Landlords cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution for house-trespass when the tenant’s claim of possession is based on a forged document.
• Courts must carefully scrutinize the evidence before framing charges, especially when there is a possibility of abuse of the legal process.
• The High Courts have a duty to intervene and prevent vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecutions.
• The Supreme Court can intervene to protect individuals from being unnecessarily dragged through a trial, especially when the facts and circumstances of the case indicate no strong suspicion of guilt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants were discharged of the liabilities of their bail bonds. The Impugned Judgment of the High Court as well as the order of the Trial Court dismissing the prayer for discharge were set aside. The Court also clarified that its judgment shall not influence pending civil proceeding(s), if any, between the private parties.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a criminal case for house-trespass cannot be sustained against a landlord when the tenant’s claim of possession is based on a forged document. This judgment reinforces the principle that courts must protect individuals from vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecutions and that the High Courts have a duty to intervene to prevent abuse of the legal process. This case also clarifies the scope of judicial review in cases involving discharge applications, emphasizing that courts should not hesitate to intervene when there is a clear abuse of the process of law.

Conclusion

In the case of Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case against landlords, holding that the case was an abuse of the process of law. The Court emphasized that the tenant’s claim of possession was based on a forged document and that the lower courts had failed to provide adequate reasons for denying the discharge application. This judgment underscores the importance of protecting individuals from unnecessary criminal prosecution and reinforces the duty of courts to intervene when there is a clear abuse of the legal process.