Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against purchaser in property dispute: Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P. (2021) INSC 588 (02 September 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 02 September 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 588
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Can a person be subjected to criminal proceedings for purchasing a property if the seller’s title is disputed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, quashing criminal proceedings against a purchaser in a property dispute. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment, especially when the core dispute is civil in nature. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, with Justice Banerjee authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute where the appellant, Randheer Singh, purchased land based on a power of attorney. Arjun Dev and his wife, Bela Rani, were the original owners of Plot No. 971M. They executed a registered Power of Attorney in favor of Rajan Kumar, who later sold the property to Randheer Singh and his family members through a series of sale deeds in July and August 2014. Subsequently, the names of Randheer Singh and his family were recorded in the revenue records.

During the mutation process, Beena Srivastava raised objections, which were rejected. She then filed a civil suit to cancel the power of attorney and the sale deeds. This suit was dismissed, but the High Court directed the plaint to be returned for presentation in the appropriate court. Beena Srivastava’s subsequent attempts to challenge this order and file contempt petitions were unsuccessful.

Following these events, Randheer Singh filed a suit for a permanent injunction, which was granted. However, Beena Srivastava brought in others, including Ratnesh Mishra, Afroz Athar, and Abdul Gani, who filed an FIR against Randheer Singh, alleging that the sale deed was based on a false power of attorney and that Randheer Singh and Rajan Kumar were attempting to trespass on the property. The FIR was lodged on 16th September, 2017.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the application of the Appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him. The application was filed to quash proceedings in Crime Case No.5973/2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), along with the charge sheet dated 18th January, 2020 and the summoning order dated 26th June, 2020. The High Court had earlier disposed of a writ petition filed by the Appellant, directing that the Appellant should not be arrested till the submission of a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
• Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.): These sections pertain to cheating, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and using a forged document as genuine, respectively.

The Supreme Court’s analysis also touches on the definition of “fraudulently” and “dishonestly” as defined in the Indian Penal Code and the Contract Act, 1872. The Court also considered the scope of Section 415 of the I.P.C. which defines “cheating”.

The relevant part of Section 415 of the I.P.C. is as follows:

“415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to ‘cheat’.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The case against the appellant was false and baseless.
• The charge sheet was submitted without proper investigation and evidence.
• No prima facie case was disclosed against the appellant.
• The dispute was civil in nature, and the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of law.
• The power of attorney was valid, and the sale deeds were executed after receiving the sale consideration.
• The investigating authorities did not examine Bela Rani, the executant of the power of attorney, to verify its authenticity.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The FIR disclosed a cognizable offense, and the High Court rightly refused to interfere.
• The power of attorney was false, and the sale deed was executed by Rajan Kumar in collusion with the Appellant.
• Bela Rani had no right to sell the property.
• The Appellant and Rajan Kumar were attempting to trespass on the property.

The respondent argued that the High Court’s order in the writ petition had attained finality, and the appellant could not reopen the same issues by filing an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

The innovativeness of the argument by the Appellant was that the investigating authorities did not examine Bela Rani, the executant of the power of attorney, to verify its authenticity. The argument by the respondent was that the High Court’s order in the writ petition had attained finality, and the appellant could not reopen the same issues by filing an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether there is any criminal offence disclosed in the FIR so far as the Appellant is concerned?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashing of criminal proceedings:

• Mohd. Ibrahim & Others v. State of Bihar [(2009) 8 SCC 751] – Supreme Court of India: The Court discussed the ingredients of cheating under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and held that a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make a complaint.
• Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand [(2013) 11 SCC 673] – Supreme Court of India: The Court emphasized that the High Court should be cautious while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that criminal proceedings should not be used to cloak a civil dispute.
• Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 336] – Supreme Court of India: The Court found that the complaint did not disclose any criminal offense and was purely a civil dispute.
• Vesa Holdings Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [(2015) 8 SCC 293] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when found to be mala fide or an abuse of the process of the court.
• Robert John D’Souza & Ors. v. Stephen V. Gomes & Anr. [(2015 (9) SCC 96] – Supreme Court of India: The Court discussed the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 415 of the I.P.C. and held that the complaint did not show that the complainant was deceived.
• Kapil Agarwal & Ors. v. Sanjay Sharma & Ors. [(2021) 5 SCC 524] – Supreme Court of India: The Court observed that Section 482 is designed to ensure that criminal proceedings are not used as weapons of harassment.

Authorities Table

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 Mohd. Ibrahim & Others v. State of Bihar [(2009) 8 SCC 751]* to highlight that a third party to a sale deed cannot claim to be cheated.
• The Court used Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand [(2013) 11 SCC 673]* to emphasize the need for caution while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
• The Court cited Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 336]* to show that civil disputes should not be given a criminal color.
• The Court referred to Vesa Holdings Private Limited & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [(2015) 8 SCC 293]* to highlight that criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when found to be mala fide.
• The Court used Robert John D’Souza & Ors. v. Stephen V. Gomes & Anr. [(2015 (9) SCC 96]* to discuss the ingredients of cheating under Section 415 of the I.P.C.
• The Court relied on Kapil Agarwal & Ors. v. Sanjay Sharma & Ors. [(2021) 5 SCC 524]* to reiterate that Section 482 should be used to prevent harassment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of a clear criminal offense in the FIR and the vague nature of the charge sheet. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment, especially when the core dispute is civil in nature. The failure of the investigating authorities to even examine Bela Rani, the executant of the power of attorney, also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles, particularly the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the ingredients of offenses under the I.P.C. While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal analysis was the dominant factor.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense. However, this was rejected because the FIR did not specify how the Appellant was involved in any criminal offense and the charge sheet was vague. The Court emphasized that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and should be resolved in civil courts.

The Supreme Court held that the FIR and charge sheet did not disclose any criminal offense against the Appellant. The Court noted that the charge sheet was totally vague and did not even mention what transpired from the investigation against the Appellant. The Court emphasized that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and should be resolved in civil courts. The Court stated that “There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” The Court further stated that “Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court.” The Court also observed that “The given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. Only because a civil remedy is available may not be a ground to quash criminal proceedings.”

The Court did not have any dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment in civil disputes.
• A vague FIR and charge sheet without specific allegations against an accused can be quashed.
• Investigating authorities must conduct a thorough investigation before filing a charge sheet, especially in cases involving allegations of forgery.
• The High Court has the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of law.
• The failure to examine key witnesses, such as the executant of a power of attorney, can weaken a criminal case.

This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be used to settle civil disputes. It also highlights the importance of a thorough investigation and the need for specific allegations in an FIR and charge sheet.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the proceedings in Crime Case No.5973/2020 be quashed as against the Appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment, especially when the core dispute is civil in nature. The judgment reinforces the principle that a vague FIR and charge sheet without specific allegations against an accused can be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This judgment does not change previous positions of law but reinforces existing principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Randheer Singh, holding that the FIR and charge sheet did not disclose any criminal offense against him. The Court emphasized that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and should be resolved in civil courts. This judgment underscores the importance of using criminal law judiciously and preventing its misuse for harassment in civil disputes.