Supreme Court Upholds Criminal Conspiracy Charges in Land Dispute Case: Jitul Jentilal Kotecha vs. State of Gujarat (2021) INSC 708 (12 November 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 12 November 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 708
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a High Court quash a criminal case based on a draft charge sheet that has not been submitted to the Magistrate? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving allegations of criminal conspiracy, forgery, and extortion related to a land dispute. The Court emphasized that the High Court cannot interfere with the statutory process of investigation by relying on a draft charge sheet that has not been formally submitted to the Magistrate. The bench comprised of Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna, with the majority opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property in Village Veja, Rajkot, initially allotted to Shamjibhai Jesabhai Koli. The appellant, Jitul Jentilal Kotecha, claimed to have purchased the property from Shamjibhai. According to the appellant, an agreement to sell was executed, and an irrevocable power of attorney was given to him and his brother. The appellant alleged that he paid a total of Rs 8,00,000 to Shamjibhai. Subsequently, a sale deed was registered in favor of the appellant, his father, and his brothers. The appellant further stated that after obtaining government permission, the land was sold to Om Prakash Kotecha, Mukul Kotecha, Ketan Kotecha, and Deepaben Kotecha.

However, Shamjibhai’s daughters, the second and third respondents, filed a suit in 2011 to cancel the sale deed. They also executed powers of attorney with other parties, including the sixth and seventh respondents, for a consideration. The appellant alleged that the fourth and fifth respondents, spouses of the second and third respondents, attempted to extort money from him by claiming the land had been sold to “land mafias.”

Prior to the FIR filed by the appellant, the second respondent had filed an FIR against the appellant alleging that the property had been obtained without full payment. This FIR was later quashed by the High Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a complaint, leading to an FIR against the respondents under Sections 465, 467, 468, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The respondents then filed petitions before the High Court of Gujarat under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court, through an interim order, allowed the investigation to continue but directed that the charge sheet not be filed without its permission. After investigation, a draft charge sheet was submitted to the High Court, which included offenses under Sections 385, 389, 418, 477, 506(2), 120B, and 34 of the IPC. The High Court quashed the FIR against all the respondents except the fourth and fifth, against whom the investigation under Section 385 of the IPC was allowed to continue. The High Court held that the allegations against the second and third respondents regarding executing powers of attorney and settlement deeds did not constitute forgery, extortion, or cheating. The High Court also held that the allegations against the sixth to ninth respondents did not constitute the offenses alleged in the FIR. The High Court observed that the fourth and fifth respondents had demanded money from the appellant to enter into a compromise, constituting an offense under Section 385 of the IPC. The fourth and fifth respondents and the appellant later settled the dispute, leading to the High Court quashing the FIR and charge sheet against them as well. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section grants the High Court inherent powers to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or to secure the ends of justice.
• Section 154 and 156 of the CrPC: These sections provide the police with the statutory right to investigate a cognizable offense.
• Section 173 of the CrPC: This section outlines the procedure for submitting a police report to the Magistrate after the completion of an investigation. Sub-section 2(i) states that the police officer in charge of the police station shall forward the final report to the Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the report.
• Sections 465, 467, 468, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections deal with forgery, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and criminal conspiracy, respectively.
• Section 385 of the IPC: This section pertains to the offense of putting a person in fear of injury to commit extortion.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while Section 482 of the CrPC grants the High Court inherent powers, these powers are not arbitrary and must be exercised judiciously, within the bounds of statutory provisions. The Court also highlighted that the police have a statutory right to investigate cognizable offenses, and the final report must be submitted to the Magistrate, who is empowered to take cognizance of the offense.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the investigation revealed a pre-planned criminal conspiracy among the accused to create a dispute over the land title by executing false MoUs.
• The appellant contended that he and his family members had legally acquired the land from Shamjibhai in 1999 through a registered agreement to sell and a power of attorney.
• The appellant emphasized that a possession receipt was issued, and a consideration of Rs 8,00,000 was received by Shamjibhai.
• The appellant pointed out that the permission for the sale of the land was obtained from the government in 2006, and the power of attorney holder executed four sale deeds after Shamjibhai’s death.
• The appellant argued that the second respondent’s FIR was lodged nine years after the alleged incident and was later quashed by the High Court.
• The appellant argued that certain accused, who were not named in the FIR, filed quashing petitions based on apprehension of being named in the charge sheet, indicating collusion with the police.
• The appellant submitted that the High Court’s findings were based on the contents of the FIR and did not consider the final investigation report.
• The appellant claimed that the legal heirs of Shamjibhai and their spouses were not pressured into a compromise.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the FIR only contained allegations against the sixth and seventh respondents, and the eighth and ninth respondents were not named in the FIR.
• The respondents contended that at most, they could be said to have financed the litigation.
• The respondents asserted that there was no allegation of extortion against them.
• The respondents argued that the powers of attorney and MoUs were executed before a notary and could not be termed as false or forged.
• The respondents claimed that the eighth respondent was implicated for drafting the documents, which was frivolous.
• The respondents argued that the earlier FIR against the appellant alleged that the power of attorney and sale deeds were forged.
• The respondents claimed that the request for permission to file the charge sheet was an attempt by the appellant and the police to create a favorable document.
• The respondents submitted that the DCB police had no role in the investigation, indicating the appellant’s influence.
• The respondents argued that the High Court had considered the draft charge sheet.
• The respondents claimed that they were harassed by the police and had obtained anticipatory bail.
• The respondents argued that the civil court had allowed an application for injunction filed by the second and third respondents.
• The respondents contended that the sale deed was not registered, and the power of attorney and sale deeds were forged.
• The respondents argued that the dispute was civil in nature and had been given a criminal color.
• The respondents pointed out that the appellant had settled with the fourth and fifth respondents and was attempting to pressure the remaining respondents.
• The respondents submitted that the FIR was registered after a delay of three years and six months.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR and the consequential proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.
2. Whether the High Court could rely on a draft charge sheet to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.
3. Whether the High Court could entertain quashing petitions from individuals not named in the FIR.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court cited Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi [CITATION] to emphasize that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction.
• The Court cited Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee [CITATION] to highlight that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked to bypass statutory provisions.
• The Court relied on Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi [CITATION] to establish that the High Court cannot direct an investigating agency to submit the investigation report before it and cannot quash a criminal proceeding based on such a report when it has not been submitted to the Magistrate.
• The Court referred to Kaptan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [CITATION] to clarify that the High Court must consider the material collected during the investigation when the charge sheet has been filed before a Magistrate.
• The Court cited Mahendra KC v. State of Karnataka [CITATION] to reiterate the test for the High Court’s exercise of its powers under Section 482 for quashing an FIR, which is whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie establish the ingredients of the offense alleged.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the statutory process of criminal investigation and to ensure that the High Court does not overstep its jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s interference in the investigation was premature and unwarranted. The Court also noted that the High Court had failed to consider the final report of the investigation, which is crucial for determining whether there is a prima facie case against the accused. The Court was also concerned about the abuse of process, as the High Court had entertained petitions for quashing from individuals who were not named in the FIR and had relied on a draft charge sheet that had not been submitted to the Magistrate.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal principles and statutory provisions, with a focus on ensuring that the investigation process is followed correctly and that the High Court does not overstep its jurisdiction. While the facts of the case were considered, the legal aspects played a more significant role in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The High Court cannot rely on a “draft charge sheet” to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court clarified that the High Court must consider the material collected during the investigation, but only after the charge sheet has been filed before a Magistrate.
• The High Court cannot direct an investigating agency to submit the investigation report before it, nor can it quash a criminal proceeding under Section 482 relying on such a report when the report has not been submitted to the Magistrate.
• The High Court cannot entertain quashing petitions from individuals who were not named in the FIR.
• The High Court should have considered the allegations of criminal conspiracy against all the accused and not just the fourth and fifth respondents.
• The High Court’s order was an unnecessary interference in the investigative process.

The Court emphasized that the High Court must exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC sparingly and with circumspection. The Court also noted that the police have a statutory right to investigate a cognizable offense, and the final report must be submitted to the Magistrate.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice.”

“If a matter is covered by an express letter of law, the court cannot give a go- by to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction.”

“…the test to be applied is whether the allegations in the complaint as they stand, without adding or detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence alleged.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts cannot interfere with the statutory process of investigation by relying on a draft charge sheet that has not been formally submitted to the Magistrate.
• High Courts must exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC judiciously and within the bounds of statutory provisions.
• The police have a statutory right to investigate cognizable offenses, and the final report must be submitted to the Magistrate.
• Quashing petitions at the behest of individuals not named in the FIR are generally not maintainable.
• The High Court must consider the allegations of criminal conspiracy against all the accused, not just some.
• This case reinforces the importance of adhering to the established legal procedures in criminal investigations.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 8 January 2019 and allowed the Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos 5736- 39 of 2019. However, Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos 5734 and 5735 of 2019 were dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court cannot interfere with the statutory process of investigation by relying on a draft charge sheet that has not been formally submitted to the Magistrate. This case reinforces the established principles regarding the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC and clarifies the limits of its jurisdiction in criminal matters. The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court cannot direct an investigating agency to submit the investigation report before it, nor can it quash a criminal proceeding under Section 482 relying on such a report when the report has not been submitted to the Magistrate. This case does not introduce new legal principles but reaffirms the existing legal framework and provides clarity on its application.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jitul Jentilal Kotecha vs. State of Gujarat clarifies the limits of the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized that the High Court cannot interfere with the statutory process of investigation by relying on a draft charge sheet and that the final report must be submitted to the Magistrate. This judgment underscores the importance of following established legal procedures in criminal investigations and ensures that the High Court does not overstep its jurisdiction.