Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Land Dispute Case: R. Nagender Yadav vs. State of Telangana (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 1342

Judges: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Can a criminal case for forgery proceed when a civil court is already examining the validity of the allegedly forged document? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a disputed land sale. The Court quashed criminal proceedings, emphasizing that when a civil suit is pending to determine the validity of a document, a related criminal case based on the same document should not proceed simultaneously. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, with the opinion authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Case Background

The case revolves around a plot of land in Telangana, owned by the complainant. The complainant claimed that he purchased the land through a sale deed dated 09 May 2008. The appellant, a cousin of the complainant, was an attesting witness to this sale deed. The complainant alleged that the appellant, in collusion with others, created a forged sale deed dated 29 December 2010, transferring the same land to a third party, Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu. The complainant claimed that his signature on the 2010 sale deed was forged and that he never executed the sale deed.

The complainant stated that the original documents remained with the appellant for obtaining necessary permissions. Upon discovering the transfer to Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu, the complainant filed a criminal complaint alleging conspiracy, forgery, and cheating against the appellant and others. The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against only the appellant, dropping the other accused, including the purchaser, stating that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice. Subsequently, the complainant also filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of the disputed sale deed of 2010.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Magistrate ordered a police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The police filed a charge sheet only against the appellant, dropping other accused, stating that the purchaser and other individuals were bona fide purchasers. The High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings, stating that there was a prima facie case against the appellant. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The criminal complaint was registered for offences under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy), Section 420 (cheating), Section 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and Section 471 (using a forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.

Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating. Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with using a forged document as genuine. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the complainant had executed the sale deed dated 29 December 2010, in favour of Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu, willingly and for the consideration mentioned in the sale deed.
• The appellant contended that the complainant had attested the sale deed himself.
• The appellant asserted that the police investigation was flawed and did not establish any criminal conspiracy.
• The appellant stated that the civil suit was already pending and the issue of the validity of the sale deed should be determined in the civil court.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The complainant argued that the sale deed dated 29 December 2010 was forged and that his signature was fabricated.
• The complainant stated that he had never executed any such sale deed in favour of Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu.
• The complainant contended that the appellant had conspired with others to forge the sale deed.
• The complainant argued that the criminal proceedings should continue as there was a prima facie case against the appellant.

The core of the dispute lies in whether the sale deed dated 29 December 2010 was genuine or forged. The appellant maintained that the complainant executed the sale deed and received the consideration, while the complainant insisted that his signature was forged and that he never executed the sale deed. The police investigation was criticized for not verifying the signature through a handwriting expert and for not investigating the payment of sale consideration.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the main issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was right in declining to quash the criminal proceedings when a civil suit regarding the validity of the same sale deed was pending.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court did not cite specific cases or books. However, the Court referred to the following legal provisions:

• Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This provision deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This provision defines the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This provision deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating.
• Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This provision deals with using a forged document as genuine.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This provision deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court used the legal provisions to analyze the case:

• The Court noted that the police did not establish a criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Court observed that the dispute was primarily civil in nature with a criminal texture under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Court noted that the allegation of forgery under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was to be decided by the Civil Court.
• The Court noted that the allegation of using a forged document under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was to be decided by the Civil Court.
• The Court emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should be used to prevent abuse of process of court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the fact that a civil suit regarding the validity of the sale deed was pending. The Court emphasized that the civil court was the appropriate forum to decide the genuineness of the sale deed and that criminal proceedings should not be used to pressure the parties when the civil remedy was available and already being pursued.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the pending civil suit and the flawed police investigation, than by pure legal considerations.

The Supreme Court reasoned that since the core issue of the validity of the sale deed was already being addressed in a civil suit, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court. The Court emphasized that the civil court has the jurisdiction and the necessary procedures to determine the genuineness of the sale deed, including taking the opinion of a handwriting expert if required. The Court also highlighted the perfunctory nature of the police investigation, which failed to obtain a handwriting expert’s opinion on the signature and did not investigate the payment of the sale consideration. The Court observed that the police had dropped the other accused, including the purchaser, from the charge sheet, which further weakened the theory of criminal conspiracy.

The Court quoted the following from the disputed sale deed dated 29.12.2010: “AND WHEREAS now the above named Vendor herein has offered to sell the above said property to the Vendees for a total sale consideration of Rs. 24,08,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eight Thousand Only), and the Vendee hereby agreed to purchase the same for the said sale consideration…The Vendor hereby declares, agrees and acknowledges that he has received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 24,08,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eight Thousand Only), from the Vendee in the manner mentioned hereunder: (1). Rs. 24,08,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eight Thousand Only) financed by the AXIS Bank Ltd. And the receipt of which sum the Vendor do hereby admit and acknowledge.”

The Court noted that the sale deed indicated that the sale consideration was financed by AXIS Bank Ltd. and that the police should have investigated whether the amount was paid to the complainant. The Court held that the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, especially when a civil remedy was available and already adopted. The Court clarified that its decision would not prevent the institution of appropriate proceedings in the future if the Civil Court concluded that the sale deed was forged. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the genuineness of the sale deed, leaving it to the Civil Court to decide.

There was no majority or minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, with the opinion authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer concurring.

Key Takeaways

• Criminal proceedings for forgery should not continue when a civil suit regarding the validity of the same document is pending.
• The civil court is the appropriate forum to decide the genuineness of a document.
• Police investigations should be thorough, including obtaining handwriting expert opinions and investigating the payment of sale consideration.
• High Courts should use their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to prevent the abuse of the process of the court.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the civil court should decide the civil suit pending between the parties on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence that may be led by both sides. It also stated that it would be open to the civil court to take the opinion of a handwriting expert as regards the signature of the complainant on the disputed sale deed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a civil suit is pending regarding the validity of a document, criminal proceedings based on the same document should not proceed simultaneously. This judgment reinforces the principle that civil disputes should be resolved through civil remedies, and criminal proceedings should not be used to pressure parties when the core issue is civil in nature. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the application of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in cases where civil and criminal proceedings overlap.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The Court emphasized that when a civil suit is pending to determine the validity of a document, a related criminal case based on the same document should not proceed simultaneously. The Court clarified that its decision would not prevent the institution of appropriate proceedings in the future if the Civil Court concluded that the sale deed was forged. The Court directed the Civil Court to decide the pending suit on its own merits.