Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Quashing Summons in Land Fraud Case: Prabhu Dutt Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: December 7, 2017
Citation: 2017 INSC 1045
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy.

Can a High Court interfere with a Magistrate’s order summoning accused persons in a criminal case, especially when the Magistrate has found sufficient grounds to proceed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the extent of judicial review at the stage of summoning. The Court emphasized that at the summoning stage, a Magistrate only needs to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed, not to conduct a detailed inquiry into the guilt of the accused.

Case Background

The case originated from a private complaint filed by Prabhu Dutt Tiwari, the appellant, alleging that the respondents had fraudulently obtained a registered land deed. The complainant stated that he and his two brothers had inherited land from their father. He alleged that the accused persons, including Pushpa Devi and Mahima Tiwari, colluded to forcibly obtain a registered deed for land khasra number 377 and 1191. The complainant further alleged that Mahima Tiwari was mentally unstable, and the accused took advantage of this to create a false and fabricated deed on 3.10.2012. He also stated that he was threatened and tortured. The complainant had approached the police, but when no action was taken, he filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court-19, Deoria.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court-19, Deoria, after examining the complainant and two witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), found a prima facie case against the accused under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Magistrate issued summons to the accused. The respondents then challenged this summoning order before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court quashed the summoning order, stating that the Magistrate should not have ignored the transferable right of a Bhumidhar (landowner). The High Court noted that the complainant had not challenged Mahima Tiwari’s ownership of the land, and therefore, the sale deed could not be considered a criminal offense. The High Court suggested that the complainant should instead pursue a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), specifically:

• Section 419, IPC: Punishment for cheating by personation.
• Section 420, IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 468, IPC: Forgery for purpose of cheating.
• Section 471, IPC: Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
• Section 120B, IPC: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.

Additionally, the case refers to Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the procedure for inquiry by a Magistrate before issuing a summons. The court also refers to Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which deals with the issue of process.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court erred in quashing the summoning order. The appellant contended that at the stage of summoning, the Magistrate only needs to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The appellant argued that the Magistrate had indeed found such grounds based on the complaint and the evidence presented.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the High Court’s order was correct. They contended that the complainant’s allegations were of a civil nature, as they pertained to a land sale. The respondents argued that the complainant had not challenged Mahima Tiwari’s ownership of the land, so the sale deed could not be considered a criminal offense. They also argued that the High Court was correct to point out that the complainant should pursue a civil suit instead of a criminal case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in interfering with the Magistrate’s order summoning the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment.

The Court did consider the following legal provisions:

• Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections define the offenses of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, which were the basis of the complaint.
• Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section outlines the procedure for inquiry by a Magistrate before issuing a summons.
• Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section deals with the issue of process.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the summoning order issued by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court stated that the High Court had gone beyond this scope and had entered into an appreciation of evidence, which was not required at this stage.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural aspect of the case. The Court focused on the limited scope of judicial review at the stage of summoning. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate had followed the necessary procedure under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and had found sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The Court was of the view that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by evaluating the evidence in detail, which was not appropriate at the summoning stage. The Court also noted that at the stage of summoning, the satisfaction required for the Magistrate is only to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating the evidence in detail, which was not appropriate at the summoning stage. The court’s decision was based on the principle that at the stage of summoning, the Magistrate only needs to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed, not to conduct a detailed inquiry into the guilt of the accused.

The court did not consider any alternate interpretations.

The decision was reached by focusing on the procedural correctness of the Magistrate’s order and the limited scope of review by the High Court at the summoning stage.

The court decided that the High Court had erred in interfering with the Magistrate’s order. The court set aside the High Court’s order and reinstated the summoning order issued by the Magistrate.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“At the stage of summoning the accused on the basis of a private complaint, all that is required is a satisfaction by the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the records made available and the evidence adduced by the complainant.”

“The discussion by the High Court would give an indication that the Magistrate had to appreciate the evidence and then enter a finding as to whether the accused are guilty or not. At the stage of summoning, as already stated above, the satisfaction required for the Magistrate is only to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.”

“Such a satisfaction for summoning an accused having been made out, the High Court went wrong in interfering with the summoning order. It was too early for the High Court to enter a finding otherwise.”

Key Takeaways

• At the stage of summoning, a Magistrate only needs to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.
• The High Court should not interfere with a Magistrate’s summoning order unless there is a clear error of law or procedure.
• A detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of summoning.
• The focus should be on whether a prima facie case is made out, not on the final guilt or innocence of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to appear before the trial court within one month. Upon their appearance, they were to be released on bail on furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the parties were free to take all available steps at the appropriate stage.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that at the stage of summoning, a Magistrate only needs to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The High Court should not interfere with a Magistrate’s summoning order unless there is a clear error of law or procedure. This decision reinforces the principle that a detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of summoning. This case clarifies the scope of the Magistrate’s powers and the limits of judicial review at the summoning stage.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhu Dutt Tiwari vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. clarifies the scope of judicial review at the stage of summoning accused persons in a criminal case. The Court held that the High Court was wrong to interfere with the Magistrate’s order, emphasizing that at the summoning stage, the Magistrate only needs to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed. This judgment reinforces the principle that a detailed assessment of evidence is not required at the summoning stage, and the focus should be on whether a prima facie case is made out.