Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Family Members in Property Dispute: Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of U.P. (28 November 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 1028

Judges: Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar

Can a person be implicated in a criminal case for a property dispute, even if they were not directly involved in the sale transaction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, quashing criminal proceedings against family members accused of dispossession in a property dispute. The court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used to harass individuals or settle civil disputes. This judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, with Justice Rastogi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute concerning House No. 189 in Jhansi. The property was originally purchased in 1977 in the name of Shravan Kumar Gupta, who was a minor at the time. In 2018, Shravan Kumar Gupta sold the property to Atul Shukla. Prior to this sale, a family settlement took place in 2006, outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which allocated the house to Vinod Kumar Gupta. Despite this MOU, Shravan Kumar Gupta sold the property to Atul Shukla. Atul Shukla claimed that after purchasing the property, he was dispossessed by Vinod Kumar Gupta and other family members. This led to the filing of a criminal complaint against the family members.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Atul Shukla, the de-facto complainant, filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), leading to the registration of an FIR. The FIR named Vinod Kumar Gupta, Ashish Gupta, Ramesh Chandra Gupta, and Rinky Sarna as accused, alleging offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447, and 386 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Magistrate took cognizance of the charges and summoned the accused. The accused then approached the High Court with a miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings. The High Court dismissed the application, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court also referred to the guidelines established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], which outlines the circumstances under which a High Court can quash criminal proceedings. The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) under which the FIR was registered are:

• Section 420, IPC: “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.”
• Section 467, IPC: “Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.”
• Section 468, IPC: “Forgery for purpose of cheating.”
• Section 471, IPC: “Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.”
• Section 504, IPC: “Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.”
• Section 506, IPC: “Punishment for criminal intimidation.”
• Section 447, IPC: “Punishment for criminal trespass.”
• Section 386, IPC: “Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the criminal proceedings were initiated to harass them and put pressure on them in a property dispute.
• They contended that the complaint did not disclose any offense against them, as they were not involved in the sale deed between Shravan Kumar Gupta and Atul Shukla.
• The appellants were not party to the MOU, nor were they witnesses or facilitators of the sale deed.
• They were not in possession of the property and were not party to the civil suit filed by the de-facto complainant.
• The only allegation against them was that they dispossessed the complainant and used filthy language, which did not warrant criminal proceedings.
• The appellants argued that the de-facto complainant was trying to settle a civil dispute through criminal proceedings.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent (de-facto complainant) argued that he was dispossessed from the property after purchasing it from Shravan Kumar Gupta.
• He alleged that the appellants, along with Vinod Kumar Gupta, forcibly took possession of the property.
• He contended that Vinod Kumar Gupta had forged documents and let out the property to Rinky Sarna to extort money.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the criminal proceedings were a misuse of the legal system to settle a civil dispute, highlighting the lack of direct involvement of the appellants in the sale transaction and their lack of possession of the property.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]* to determine the circumstances under which criminal proceedings can be quashed, finding that the present case fell under categories (1) and (7) of the guidelines.
• The Court cited Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2017) 13 SCC 369]* to emphasize the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
• The Court referred to Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2021 SCC OnLine SC 315]* to highlight the consistent application of the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellants were not directly involved in the sale transaction between Shravan Kumar Gupta and Atul Shukla. The Court emphasized that the criminal proceedings were an attempt to harass the appellants and settle a civil dispute. The Court was also concerned about the abuse of the legal process and the need to prevent such misuse of criminal law.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the lack of direct involvement of the appellants in the sale transaction, the absence of any criminal offense, and the fact that the proceedings were an attempt to settle a civil dispute. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the proceedings should be quashed.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to examine the complaint and how the appellants were connected to the alleged crime. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment or to settle civil disputes. The court stated that “Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice.” The court further noted that “Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment.” The court also stated that “The present case is fully covered by categories (1) and (3), as enumerated in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others.”

The court rejected the argument that the appellants were involved in a criminal conspiracy, noting that they were not directly involved in the sale transaction and the allegations against them did not constitute a criminal offense. The court also highlighted that the appellants were not in possession of the property and were not parties to the civil suit filed by the de-facto complainant.

The court did not find any minority opinion in the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Criminal proceedings should not be used to harass individuals or to settle civil disputes.
• Family members not directly involved in a property sale transaction cannot be implicated in criminal cases based solely on allegations of dispossession.
• High Courts have the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings that are an abuse of the legal process.
• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the trial court may proceed with the criminal case against the other accused persons independently on its own merits. The court also directed that the civil court may decide the Original Suit No. 91 of 2015 independently on its own merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against individuals who are not directly involved in a property sale transaction and that such proceedings are an abuse of the legal process. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] and clarifies that criminal law should not be used to settle civil disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and quashed the criminal proceedings against Ramesh Chandra Gupta, Ashish Gupta, and Rinky Sarna. The court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used to harass individuals or settle civil disputes, and that the appellants were not directly involved in the sale transaction or the alleged criminal activities.