MOSIRUDDIN MUNSHIversusMD. SIRAJ AND ANOTHER

                    [2014] 7 S.C.R. 497


                   MOSIRUDDIN MUNSHI                            A
                              v.
                 MD. SIRAJ AND ANOTHER
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1168 of 2014)
                        MAY 9, 2014
                                                                 B
         [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
 Jurisdiction of High Court - Exercise of, for quashing FIR!
,criminal proceedings - On facts, Magistrate treating complaint · C
 uls.420 rlw s 1208 as FIR, forwarded it for investigation u/s.
 156 Cr.P.C. - Application uls.482 - High Court quashed the
.complaint proceedings including FIR - Justification of - Held:
 High Court should not have quashed FIR - High Court
 adopted a strictly hyper technical approach - Investigation D
 should have been allowed to· proceed, when the averments
 in the complaint would prima facie make out a case for
 investigation by the authority- Penal Code, 1860 - s.420 rlw_
 s.120!3.
                                                                 E
    The appellant-complainant on believing the
representation made by accused No.2, entered into an
agreement for sale with respondent No.1 and paid huge
amount. Respondent No.1 did not hand over the title
documents to the appellant. The appellant then sent a
                                                                 F
legal notice to respondent No.1 and thereafter, filed a
criminal. complaint before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate against respondent No.1 and
accused No.2 u/s. 420 read with s. 1208 of the Penal
Code. The ACMM forwarded the complaint for
investigation u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. by treating the complaint      G
as FIR. Respondent No.1 filed an application u/s. 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings including the FIR.
The appellant was impleaded as a party but was not

                              497                                H'
    498      SUPREME COUFff REPORTS             [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A served any notice. The High Court quashed the complaint
  proceedings declaring it to be a civil transaction. On
  remittance of the matter, the High Court again quashed
  the complaint proceedings. Hence, the instant appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court
B
        HELD: 1.1. The First Information Report should not
    have· been quashed and the investigation should have
    been allowed to proceed. [Para 10] [503-8]

c      1.2. The complaint does make averments so as to
  infer fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been
  made by respondent No.1 and accused No.2 pursuant to
  which the appellant parted with money. The averments
  in the complaint would prima facie make out a case for
D investigation by the authority. [Para 7] [502-D-F]

       1.3. The High Court adopted a strictly hyper technical
  approach and such an endeavour may be justified during
  a trial, but certainly not during the stage of investigation.
  At any rate it is too pre-mature a stage for the High Court
E to step in and stall the investigation by declaring that it
  is a civil transaction .wherein no semblance of criminal
  offence is involved. [Para 9) [502-H; 503-A]

          Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others vs. State ofl
F Bihar and another (2.000) 4 sec 168, Murari Lal Gupta vs.
  Gopi Singh (2005) 13 SCC 699; Ram Birajf Devi and another
  vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and another (2006) 6 SCC ~9 -
  distinguished.                                      ·
       R. Ka/yani vs. Janak C. Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516;
G Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 4 SCC 443
  - referred to.
                        Case Law Reference :
          (2000) 4 sec 168      Distinguished        Para 4
H
            MOSIRUDDIN MUNSHI v. MD. SIRAJ,                   499


       c2005) 13 sec 699         Distinguished         Para 4       A
       c2006) 6 sec 669         · Distinguished        Para 4
       (2009) 1 sec 516          Referred to           Para 5
       c2009) 4 sec 443          Referred to·          Para 6
                                                          B
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal ..
  No. 1168 of 2014.

      Frorri the Judgment and Order dated 29·.06.2010 in CRR
  No. 1978/2006 of the High Court of Calcutta.               -,.C

      Sumanta Chakrabotry, Chandan Kumar Rai for the
  Appellant.

       Pijush K. Roy, Kakali Roy, Mithilesh Kumar Singh for the
   Respondents.                                                 D

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. CRMP No.12896 of
   20'11 seeking impleadment as a party is dismissed.
                                                                     E
        2. This appeal is preferred against order dated June 29,
   2010, passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRR No.1978
   of 2006 in FIR No.251 dated 10. 11.2005 on the file of Amherst
   Street Police Station registereCHor the alleged offences under
   Section 420/1208 IPC including the order dated 28.10.2005 in      F
   case No.C/949 of 2005 passed by the Additional Metropolitan
   Magistrate, Calcutta.

          3. Briefly the facts are as follows : The appellant herein/ ·
     complainant was looking for a plot of land for construction of G
     residential house in January 2005 and accused No.2, Masud
     Alam, a public servant represented that he could arrange for the
·· · said plot and introduced the appellant to respondent No.1/
     accused No.1 who stated that he had a plot of land and the
     appellant believing the representation made by the accused
                                                                     H
        500      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S.C.R.


-   A    No.2 entered into an agmement for sale with respondent No.1
         herein/accused No.1 and also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,001/- in
        cash. The respondent No.1 herein refused to hand over the
        necessary title documents to the appellant which led to
        issuance of legal notice by the appellant. All other methods to
    B compel respondent No.1 to complete the sale having failed the
        appellant filed a complaint on 28.10.2005 in the Court of
        Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against
        respondent No.1 herein/accused No.1 and accused No.2 for
        the offences punishable under Section 420, read with Section
    c    1208 of the !PC. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
        forwarded the complaint to the officer in-charge of the Amherst
        Street Police Station for causing investigation under Section
         156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code by treating the complaint
        as First Information Report. Respondent No.1 herein/accused
        No.1 filed application under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashing
    0
        the said proceedings including the FIR. Though the appellant
        herein/complainant was impleaded as a party no attempt was
        made to serve notice on him with the result that the learned
        single Judge of the. High Court quashed the complaint
    E proceedings in the absence of the appellant herein. Challenging
        the said order the appellant herein preferred appeal to this Court
      'in Criminal Appeal No.852 of 2008 and this Court by judgment
        dated May 09, 2008 allowed the appeal and remitted the case
        to the High Court for a fresh decision in-accordance with law.
        Thereafter the High Court heard both the parties and by
    F impugned order dated June, 29, 2010 allowed the application
        under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quashed the complaint
        proceedings. Aggrieved by the same' the complainant has
        preferred the present appeal.

    G      4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
      contents of the complaint would disclose the commission of the
      cognizable offences alleged and the High Court at the
      preliminary stage would not be justified in embarking upon an
      inquiry and quashing the proceedings and hence the impugned
    H order is liable to be set aside. Per contra the learned counsel
            MOSIRUDDIN MUNSHI v. MD. SIRAJ                    501
                  [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
for the Respondent No.1 /accused No.1 -contended that the             A
dispute involved in the complaint is of civil nature and none of
the acts allegedly committed by the Respondent No.1 gave r,ise
to any criminal liability as rightly held by the High Court. In
support of the submission he relied on the following decisions
of this Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others Vs.           B
State of Bihar and another (2000) 4 SCC 168, Murari Lal
Gupta Vs. Gopi Singh (2005) 13 SCC 699 and Ram Biraji
Devi and another Vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and another
(2006) 6 sec 669.

     5. The legal position with regard to exercise of jurisdiction
                                                                      c
by the High Court for quashing the First Information Report is
now well settled. It is not necessary for us to delve deep
thereinto as the propositions of law have been stated by this
Court in R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516 in
the following terms :                                                 D

     "15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said
     decisions are :

      (1)     The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its
                                                                      E
              inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding
              and, in particular, a first information report unless
              the allegations contained therein, even if given face
              value and taken to be correct in their entirety,
              disclosed no cognizable offence.
                                                                      F
      (2)     For the said purpose the Court, save and except
              in very exceptional circumstances, would not look
              to any document relied upon by the defence.

      (3)     Such a power should be exercised very sparingly.
              If the allegations made in the FIR disclose
              commission of an offence, the Court shall not go
              beyond the same and pass an order in favour of th
              accused to hold absence of any mens rea or act
              re us.
                                                                      h
    502      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2014) 7 S.C.R.

A          (4)   If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same
                 by itself may not be a ground to hold that the
                 criminal proce!edings should not be allowed to
                 continue.

8       6. Yet again in Mahesh Chaudhary Vs. State of
    Rajasthan (2009) 4 SCC 443) this Court stated the law thus :

          "11. The principle providing for exercise of the power by
          a High Court under Section 462 ofthe Code of Criminal
          Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding is well known.
C         The Court shall ordinarily exercise the said jurisdiction, inter
          alia, in the event the allegations contained in the FIR or the
          complaint petition e,ven if on face value are taken to be
          correct in their entirety, does not disclose commission of
          an offence."
D
        7. In the present case the complaint does make averments
   so as to infer fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been
 • made by Respondent No.1 herein and accused No.2 pursuant
   to which the appellant parted with money. It is the case of the
E appellant that Respondent No.2 does not have title over the
   property since the settlement deed was not a registered one
   and Respondent No.1 herein and accused No.2 had entered
   into criminal conspiracy and they fraudulently induced the
   appellant to deliver a sum of Rs.5,00,001/- with no intention to
   complete the sale deal. The averments in the complaint would
F prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authority.
       8. In the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the
  respondent No.1, cited supra, this Court on the facts therein
  held that the allegations in the complaint read as a whole prima
G facie did not disclose commission of offences alleged and
  quashed the criminal proceedings. Those decisions do not
  apply to the fact situation of the pre~ent case. ·
      9. The High Court has adopted a strictly hypertechnical
  approach and such an endeavour may be justified during a trial,
H
                     •
             MOSIRUDDIN MUNSHI v. MD. SIRAJ                   503
                   [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
but certainly not during the stage of investigation. At any rate it A
is too premature a stage for the High Court to step in and stall··
the investigation by declaring that it is a civil transaction wherein
no semblance of criminal offence is involved.
     10. The appellant, is therefore right in contending that the , ,
First lnformation·,Report should not have been quashed in this 8
case and the investigation should have been allowed to
proceed.                                         ·            ••
    11. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the,
impugned order.                                  ·· ·       C
Nidhi Jain                                         Appeal allowed.




                                                                        .-