DILBAG RAIversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

1138                SUPREME[2018]
                            COURT 14 REPORTS
                                     S.C.R. 1138            [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A                               DILBAG RAI
                                       v.
                      THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2018)
                             DECEMBER 03, 2018
 B
               [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                          M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
              Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of FIR/
       criminal proceedings under – On facts, proceedings arising out of
 C     F.I.R. registered u/ss. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC –
       Quashed by the High Court on the ground that the complainant
       had failed to make out any criminal intent on the part of the accused
       – Justification of – Held: High Court was not justified in taking
       recourse to its power u/s. 482 to quash the proceedings – High
       Court lost sight of crucial aspects which emerged during the course
 D     of the investigation – It was complainant’s case that though the
       accused did not have title to the property, she had dealt with the
       property and it was on that basis that the complainant was induced
       to part with valuable consideration – Furthermore, the correctness
       of these allegations is a matter of trial – Thus, the order of the High
 E     Court is set aside.
              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
       No. 1509 of 2018.
              From the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2016 of the High Court
       of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 35679 of 2014.
 F            Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, J. B. Mudgil, Dr. Shivani, Rameshwar Prasad
       Goyal Advs. for the Appellant.
              Vishwa Pal Singh, Vijay Kumar, Dr. Monika Gusain, Manpreet
       K. Bhallu, Advs. for the Respondents.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 G            DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
              1. Leave granted.
              2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 11.2.2016
       passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the impugned
       judgment, the High Court has quashed the proceedings arising out of
 H
                                        1138
       DILBAG RAI v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                               1139
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

F.I.R. No. 210 dated 21.6.2014 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467,        A
468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”) at
Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.
       3. The complainant is in appeal in these proceedings. The case of
the appellant is that on 1.12.2011, the accused, who is impleaded as
respondent No. 2, entered into an agreement to sell a property                 B
admeasuring 8 marlas situated at Patti Jhabran, behind Lucky Colony,
Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. An amount of Rs. 10 lakhs is said to
have been paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. The
complaint states that though the agreement recites that possession of
the property was handed over, as a matter of fact, the possession was
not transferred.                                                               C
       4. Since the accused did not proceed to complete the transaction,
the appellant on 30.1.2014 filed an application before the Superintendent
of Police, District Kurukshetra for registration of a complaint and for
taking action against respondent No. 2 and her husband Gurcharan Singh.
       5. The case was referred to the Economic Crime Cell,                    D
Kurukshetra. On enquiry, the Economic Crime Cell submitted its report
dated 4.3.2014 concluding that the dispute was of a civil nature.
       6. The appellant thereafter filed an application under Section 156(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CrPC”) and on the direction of
the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, Kurukshetra, F.I.R. No. 210 was registered         E
on 21.6.2014 at the Police Station, Shahabad Markanda, District
Kurukshetra.
       7. The accused filed an application being CRM-M No. 35679 of
14 before the High Court for quashing the FIR on the ground that the
dispute was of a civil nature. During the course of the investigation, the
                                                                               F
statement of the owner of the plot was recorded on 27.10.2014 to the
effect that the plot in fact belongs to his wife Sushila.
       8. Eventually after investigation, a chargesheet under Section 173
CrPC was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 20.11.2014 for
offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code.
                                                                               G
       9. Charges have been framed on 11.12.2014. The trial commenced
and five prosecution witnesses were examined.
       10. The High Court by its impugned order dated 11.2.2016, quashed
the proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. on the ground that on a plain
reading of the FIR, the complainant had failed to make out any criminal
intent on the part of the accused.                                             H
1140                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A             11. Assailing the judgment of the High Court, it has been submitted
       on behalf of the appellant that the High Court had manifestly erred in
       exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPc at this stage particularly
       when after due investigation, the chargesheet has been filed and charges
       have been framed. Moreover, it has also been submitted that a criminal
       intent emerges from the fact that though the property did not stand in the
 B
       name of the accused it was sought to be sold and in pursuance of the
       transaction, the appellant was made to part with valuable consideration.
               12. On 29.6.2016, notice was issued in these proceedings. The
       office report indicates that service of notice is complete on respondent
       No. 2. Despite service, none has appeared for respondent No. 2.
 C             13. The High Court was persuaded to quash the criminal
       proceedings purely on the basis that the F.I.R. indicated that the vendor
       had refused to execute the sale deed. On this basis, the High Court held
       that there is no element of cheating and on reading of the F.I.R., the
       complainant had failed to make out any criminal intent on the part of the
 D     accused.
               14. In arriving at this conclusion, the High Court, as would appear
       from the narration of facts earlier, has lost sight of crucial aspects which
       have emerged during the course of the investigation. The case of the
       complainant, it must be noted, is that though the accused did not have
 E     title to the property, she had dealt with the property and it was on that
       basis that the complainant was induced to part with valuable consideration.
               15. Whether these allegations are true or otherwise is a matter of
       trial.
               16. The High Court, in our view, was not justified in taking recourse
       to its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.
 F
               17. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the
       impugned order of the High Court dated 11.2.2016. However, we clarify
       that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the accusation which
       is a subject matter of the criminal trial.
               18. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
 G
               19. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

       Nidhi Jain                                                  Appeal disposed of.



 H