Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Dispute Case: Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 5112
Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Can a long-standing civil dispute over land ownership justify a criminal complaint? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing that civil matters should not be given a criminal color to exert pressure. This case involves a complex land dispute where a criminal FIR was filed after civil litigation failed to provide relief. The Court ultimately quashed the FIR, highlighting the misuse of criminal proceedings in what was essentially a civil matter. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute in Bengaluru. GM Infinite Dwelling (India) Private Limited (GMID), managed by the appellant, Sri Gulam Mustafa, entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) on August 17, 2009, with the heirs of Mr. A. Hafeez Khan, the original landowners of Survey Number 83. The land was originally owned by Mr. A. Hafeez Khan, whose heirs possessed a sale deed, an order from the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams Abolition, Bangalore, dated July 9, 1961, and revenue records. The land use was converted from agriculture to non-agriculture, and necessary approvals were obtained from various departments, including the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (BBMP), for constructing an apartment project.

However, one Venkatesh, claiming ownership of the old Survey Number 83 (later renumbered as 80/1 and 80/3), asserted title over the new Survey Number 83, leading to prolonged civil litigation. Despite multiple unfavorable decisions from the Special Tehsildar, Assistant Commissioner, and Special Deputy Commissioner, Venkatesh continued his legal battle. He filed a frivolous suit which was dismissed, and his appeal to the High Court was also unsuccessful. Venkatesh also got the sanctioned plan cancelled, which was later restored by the BBMP’s Appeal Committee after GMID filed a writ petition.

Following this, Venkatesh and his associates initiated criminal proceedings against GMID and its directors. A criminal complaint was lodged by the mother of a plaintiff in another civil suit against the landowners and builders. This complaint resulted in a First Information Report (FIR) being filed at Bagalgunte Police Station, Bangalore City, under Sections 120B, 406, 419, 468, 471, 420, 448, and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 3(1)(15) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The appellant, Gulam Mustafa, was named as Accused No. 18 in the FIR.

The construction of the apartments was completed in 2017, and sale deeds were executed in favor of the allottees. Despite this, the criminal proceedings continued, prompting the appellant to file a petition for quashing the FIR, which was eventually dismissed by the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The dispute began with civil litigation initiated by Venkatesh, who claimed ownership of the land based on the old survey number. His claims were rejected by the Special Tehsildar, the Assistant Commissioner, and the Special Deputy Commissioner. Venkatesh also filed a frivolous civil suit, which was dismissed, and his appeal to the High Court was also unsuccessful.

Additionally, Venkatesh managed to get the sanctioned plan cancelled, which was later restored by the BBMP’s Appeal Committee after GMID challenged the cancellation in a writ petition. Despite the civil suits and appeals going against Venkatesh, he and his associates initiated criminal proceedings against the appellant and others.

The appellant then filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court to quash the FIR. The High Court initially granted an interim stay on the proceedings but ultimately dismissed the petition on February 23, 2021, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case includes several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The FIR was registered under:

• Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 419 (cheating by personation), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 420 (cheating), 448 (house-trespass), and 427 (mischief) of the IPC.
• Section 3(1)(15) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant sought the quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides the High Court with inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The matter is purely civil, involving a land title dispute, and should not be converted into a criminal case.
• Multiple authorities had granted permissions for construction, and the initial civil litigation was decided in favor of the original landowners.
• The complaint was filed by a family member of Venkatesh, who had abused the legal process due to the similarity in old and new survey numbers.
• The FIR is a misuse of process, filed by a family member of a person who was unsuccessful in previous civil proceedings.
• The allegations under the SC/ST Act were made with malafide intentions.
• The appellant relied on cases like Govind Prasad Kejriwal v State of Bihar, (2020) 16 SCC 714, Commissioner of Police v Devender Anand, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 966, Binod Kumar v State of Bihar, (2014) 10 SCC 663, Indian Oil Corporation v NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, and G Sagar Suri v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2000) 2 SCC 636, to emphasize that false criminal cases should not be used to settle civil disputes.
• The complainant’s family had unsuccessfully tried to claim title to the land multiple times, and the FIR was an attempt to coerce the appellant.

Complainant’s Submissions:

• The police investigation should be allowed to complete, and the matter should not be interfered with.
• The complainant belongs to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category and is protected under the SC/ST Act.
• The allegations of cheating, criminal conspiracy, and trespass are cognizable offenses under the IPC and attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
• The property belongs to the complainant and her family, and the construction was raised using forged documents.
• The Court should be circumspect in interfering with the investigation and quashing of FIRs.
• The complainant relied on cases like State of Madhya Pradesh v Surendra Kori, (2012) 10 SCC 155, Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104, Satvinder Kaur v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728, P Chidambaram v Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 795, and Union of India v Prakash P Hinduja, (2003) 6 SCC 195, to argue that the court should not interfere with the investigation.
• The FIR need not be an encyclopedia and should be allowed to proceed. The complainant relied on Superintendent of Police, CBI v Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175 and State of Uttar Pradesh v Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, to support this point.

State’s Submissions:

• The matter involves disputed questions of fact, and the police should be allowed to investigate.
• The State relied on Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel (supra), to argue that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to probe the crime, and the High Court should not act as an Investigating Officer.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue before the court was whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the petition to quash the FIR, given that the matter appeared to be a civil dispute disguised as a criminal case.

The sub-issues were:

• Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie constitute any offense.
• Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offense justifying police investigation.
• Whether the FIR was a misuse of the legal process.
• Whether the invocation of the SC/ST Act was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Outlined categories of cases where the High Court can exercise its power to quash criminal proceedings. (Supreme Court of India)
• S W Palanitkar v State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 24 – Emphasized that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be used to prevent abuse of the judicial process. (Supreme Court of India)
• State of Karnataka v M Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 – Reiterated that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. (Supreme Court of India)
• Uma Shankar Gopalika v State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336 – Held that when a complaint does not disclose any criminal offense, the proceeding is liable to be quashed. (Supreme Court of India)
• Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 – Examined the law on quashing of FIRs. (Supreme Court of India)
• Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 – Opined that the inherent power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and with caution. (Supreme Court of India)
• Vinod Natesan v State of Kerala, (2019) 2 SCC 401 – Held that a civil dispute should not be converted into a criminal dispute. (Supreme Court of India)
• Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350 – Considered the legal position on quashing FIRs. (Supreme Court of India)
• Mahendra K C v State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1021 – Stated the tests to be applied while quashing an FIR. (Supreme Court of India)
• Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427 – Highlighted the importance of protecting liberty by preventing abuse of process. (Supreme Court of India)
• Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 – Provided a detailed exposition of the law on quashing FIRs. (Supreme Court of India)
• Ramawatar v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 – Held that the mere fact that an offense is covered under a special statute like the SC/ST Act does not prevent the Court from exercising its powers to quash proceedings. (Supreme Court of India)

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law.
• Sections 120B, 406, 419, 468, 471, 420, 448, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Offenses under which the FIR was registered.
• Section 3(1)(15) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) – Provision under which the FIR was registered.

Judgment

The Court relied on the following authorities to support its reasoning:

• State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: The Court used this case to highlight the categories where the High Court can exercise its power to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
• S W Palanitkar v State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 24: This authority was used to emphasize that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be used to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
• State of Karnataka v M Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89: The Court reiterated that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
• Uma Shankar Gopalika v State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336: This case was cited to show that when a complaint does not disclose any criminal offense, the proceeding is liable to be quashed.
• Parbatbhai Aahir v State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641: The Court referred to this case for the legal position on quashing of FIRs.
• Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779: This case was used to emphasize that the inherent power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and with caution.
• Vinod Natesan v State of Kerala, (2019) 2 SCC 401: The Court cited this authority to support the position that a civil dispute should not be converted into a criminal dispute.
• Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350: This case was considered for the legal position on quashing FIRs.
• Mahendra K C v State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1021: The Court used this case to state the tests to be applied while quashing an FIR.
• Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427: This case was cited to highlight the importance of protecting liberty by preventing abuse of process.
• Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315: The Court referred to this case for a detailed exposition of the law on quashing FIRs.
• Ramawatar v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966: This case was used to support the view that the mere fact that an offense is covered under a special statute like the SC/ST Act does not prevent the Court from exercising its powers to quash proceedings.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The long-standing nature of the civil dispute and the absence of any criminal element.
• The misuse of the criminal justice system to exert pressure in a civil matter.
• The lack of merit in the allegations under the SC/ST Act.
• The need to prevent abuse of the process of law.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following logical steps for the issue of whether the FIR should be quashed:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because the facts clearly indicated a civil dispute being misused as a criminal case. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that the criminal justice system should not be used to settle civil disputes.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The land-owners had purchased the land in 1954-1955, and occupancy rights were created in their favor in 1961.
• No dispute was raised for a long period until after GMID started construction and sold apartments in 2017.
• The complainant and her family members had failed to secure any relief in civil litigations.
• The FIR was filed after the complainant failed to obtain an interim order in the civil suit.
• The allegations under the SC/ST Act were not substantiated.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the criminal justice system should not be used to settle civil disputes. When a dispute is primarily civil in nature, and the allegations do not disclose a cognizable criminal offense, the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the FIR to prevent abuse of the process of law. The mere fact that a complainant belongs to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes category does not justify the invocation of the SC/ST Act when the dispute is not related to caste-based atrocities.

Obiter Dicta

The obiter dicta in this case include the following observations:

• The High Court should be cautious and vigilant in exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash criminal proceedings.
• The inherent power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and with caution.
• The mere fact that the FIR includes allegations under the SC/ST Act does not prevent the Court from examining the merits of the case and quashing the FIR if it is found to be an abuse of the process of law.
• Criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool to exert pressure in civil disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the FIR in the case of Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka (2023) underscores the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between civil and criminal matters. The Court emphasized that the criminal justice system should not be misused to settle civil disputes. The judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts to exercise caution and vigilance when dealing with cases that appear to be civil disputes disguised as criminal offenses. The decision also highlights the need to prevent the abuse of the legal process and protect the liberty of individuals from frivolous criminal proceedings. The case reaffirms the principle that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be used to ensure that the criminal justice system is not exploited for ulterior motives.