Supreme Court Restores Criminal Case in Land Forgery Matter: Navin Kumar Rai vs. Surendra Singh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 14 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 116

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.

Can a criminal case for forgery be dismissed simply because a related civil suit is ongoing? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving alleged land forgery. The Court clarified the powers of the Sub-Registrar to initiate criminal proceedings under the Registration Act, 1908, and emphasized that the existence of a civil suit does not automatically negate a criminal offense. This judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, overturns a High Court decision that had quashed a criminal FIR.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land transaction in Giridih, Jharkhand. Purushotam Kumar (A-1) allegedly forged a Power of Attorney (PoA) to transfer land to Bikash Kumar Singh (A-2) and Surendra Singh (A-3). Surendra Singh also witnessed the sale transaction. The original owner, Navin Kumar Rai, filed a civil suit to declare the transaction void after discovering the alleged forgery.

Independently, the District Deputy Registrar of Giridih initiated an inquiry based on a circular, finding that A-1 had indeed forged the PoA by impersonating Navin Kumar Rai. Consequently, both the PoA and the sale deed were canceled. Following this, on 15th October 2020, an FIR was registered against seven accused persons, including A-1, A-2, and A-3, based on the Deputy Registrar’s communication.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The accused persons filed writ petitions in the High Court of Jharkhand challenging the FIR. The High Court quashed the FIR, citing that a civil suit was already filed, no criminality was evident, the criminal prosecution was an abuse of the court process, and the matter appeared to be a civil wrong. The High Court stated that a registered document can be annulled by filing a civil suit, and the Deputy Commissioner does not have the power to cancel a sale deed.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court highlighted Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, which empower the Inspector General, Registrar, or Sub-Registrar to initiate prosecution for offenses under the Act.

Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, specifies penalties for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation, and abetment:

“82. Penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation, and abetment. -Whoever – (a) intentionally makes any false statement, whether on oath or not, and whether it has been recorded or not, before any officer acting in execution of this Act, in any proceeding or inquiry under this Act; or (b) intentionally delivers to a registering officer, in any proceeding under section 19 or section 21, a false copy or translation of a document, or a false copy of a map or plan; or (c) falsely personates another, and in such assumed character presents any document, or makes any admission or statement, or causes any summons or commission to be issued, or does any other act in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or (d) abets anything made punishable by this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, outlines the power of registering officers to commence prosecutions:

“83. Registering officers may commence prosecutions. (1) A prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector -General, the Registrar or the Sub -Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub -district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed. (2) Offences punishable under this Act shall be triable by any Court or officer exercising powers not less than those of a Magistrate of the second class.”

The Court noted that the Sub-Registrar, being a competent authority, had initiated the FIR based on the inquiry. It clarified that the power to initiate criminal proceedings under the Registration Act, 1908, is distinct from the general penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Arguments

The accused argued that the matter was civil in nature, as a title suit was already pending, and that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the court process. They contended that the Deputy Commissioner does not have the power to cancel a sale deed and that the matter should be resolved through the civil suit.

The prosecution argued that the FIR was based on the communication of the Sub-Registrar, a competent authority, and that the forgery of the PoA and the subsequent land transfer constituted criminal offenses under the IPC. They emphasized that the criminal proceedings were independent of the civil suit.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to consider whether the ingredients of the offenses under the IPC were prima facie made out, as required by precedents such as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335], Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra [2021 SCC OnLine 315], and Peethambaran v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC OnLine 553]. The Court also noted the High Court’s failure to discuss the aspect of “criminality” despite referring to Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [(2017) 13 SCC 369].

The Supreme Court further noted that the High Court’s observation that the FIR was lodged against Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, was incorrect, as the Section allows the Sub-Registrar to initiate prosecution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR based on the premise that a civil suit was pending.
2. Whether the Sub-Registrar had the authority to initiate criminal proceedings under the Registration Act, 1908.
3. Whether the High Court correctly applied the principles for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908: Penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation, and abetment.
• Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908: Registering officers may commence prosecutions.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335]*: The Court referred to this case for the principles on quashing an FIR, noting that the High Court failed to apply these principles correctly.
• Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra [2021 SCC OnLine 315]*: The Court referred to this case for the principles on quashing an FIR, noting that the High Court failed to apply these principles correctly.
• Peethambaran v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC OnLine 553]*: The Court referred to this case for the principles on quashing an FIR, noting that the High Court failed to apply these principles correctly.
• Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [(2017) 13 SCC 369]*: The Court noted that while the High Court referred to this case, it failed to discuss the aspect of “criminality” as required by the judgment.
• Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal [(2022) 7 SCC 124]*: The Court referred to this case for the factors to be considered for the offense of cheating, emphasizing that the High Court did not examine these factors.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the High Court had incorrectly applied the law by quashing the FIR. The Court emphasized that the Sub-Registrar had the authority to initiate criminal proceedings under the Registration Act, 1908, and that the existence of a civil suit did not negate the criminal offenses alleged in the FIR. The Court also highlighted the High Court’s failure to consider the principles for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the prima facie existence of the offenses under the IPC.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and the correct interpretation of the Registration Act, 1908, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is reflected in the higher percentage of law in the ratio.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the law, the authority of the Sub-Registrar, and the need to ensure that criminal offenses are not overlooked simply because a civil suit is pending.

The Court stated, “In our considered view , the premise on which the Court proceeded in quashing the FIR is on the wrong assumption, interpretation , and application of the law.”

The Court also noted, “It is all too well settled that while exercising such inherent powers what is required to be examined is only the prima facie existence of the offence sought to be quashed.”

Further, the Court clarified, “The Court’s observation that because there is no order of the Inspector General, “ in spite of that this FIR has been lodged by the District Sub -Registrar, Giridih, which is against Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 ” as demonstrated (supra) is completely divorced from the text of the Section itself, for, it provides , as reproduced above, that a prosecution may be lodged by or with the permission of the Sub -Registrar in whose territory the offence has been committed.”

Key Takeaways

• The existence of a civil suit does not automatically negate a criminal offense.
• The Sub-Registrar has the authority to initiate criminal proceedings under the Registration Act, 1908.
• High Courts must consider the prima facie existence of offenses before quashing an FIR.
• Criminal proceedings can be initiated independently of civil proceedings, especially in cases of forgery.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of upholding the law and ensuring that criminal offenses are properly investigated and prosecuted.

Directions

The Supreme Court restored the FIR and directed the trial court to commence proceedings as per law. The appellant was directed to appear before the trial court on 01.03.2024. The Court also directed the trial to be expedited and, if possible, conducted on a day-to-day basis to ensure a timely conclusion.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the existence of a civil suit does not bar the initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings for offenses arising from the same set of facts, particularly in cases of forgery. This judgment clarifies that the Sub-Registrar has the authority to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908, and reinforces the need for High Courts to adhere to established principles when exercising their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This case does not change any previous positions of law but clarifies the position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court restored the FIR and directed the trial court to proceed with the case. This judgment underscores that criminal proceedings can proceed independently of civil suits, particularly in cases of forgery, and clarifies the powers of the Sub-Registrar under the Registration Act, 1908.