Holding

The Supreme Court held that the complaint and the magistrate’s cognizance were an abuse of process and should be quashed as the dispute was civil and no prima facie criminal case existed.

Summary

The complainant, Umesh Kumar Singh, alleged that the appellants, Ram Biraji Devi and another, accepted part payment for a plot of land but later refused to transfer it, leading him to file a criminal complaint under IPC sections 406, 419, 420 and 120B. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, and the appellants sought quashing of the cognizance under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Patna High Court dismissed the petition, but the Supreme Court held that the dispute was essentially a civil matter with no prima facie criminal case, and that the magistrate’s cognizance amounted to an abuse of process. Relying on the principle that quashing under Section 482 is permissible only in extreme cases, the Court quashed both the High Court’s order and the magistrate’s cognizance, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

The complaint/FIR under Sections 406, 419, 420 and 120B of the IPC is maintainable when the underlying dispute is civil in nature.
Whether the High Court erred in not exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the cognizance taken by the magistrate.
Whether the magistrate’s taking of cognizance constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.
The applicability of the precedent set in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors. regarding quashing of FIRs.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 406, s. 419, s. 420

Subjects

sale of landcivil disputecriminal complaintSection 482quashing of FIRabuse of processIndian Penal Codecivil liabilityextreme exception

Judgment

RAM BIRAJI DEVI AND ANR. A
V.

UMESH KUMAR SINGH AND ANR.

MAY 11, 2006

[ASHOK BHAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Quashing of
Complaint/FIR-Dispute in respect ofsale and purchase ofland-Complaint
under sections 406, 419, 420 and 120-B /PC alleging that the seller after
accepting the consideration amount refused to transfer the plot to the
complainant-purchaser-Cognizance taken by the Magistrate-Petition under c
section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of cognizance-Dismissal by High
Court-On appeal held: Dispute amounts to civil liability inter se the
parties-No prima facie case was made out by complainant-purchaser
against the seller involving them in the commission of the alleged offence-
Cognizance taken by the Magistrate was an abuse ofprocess of Court-This
is a case of extreme exception where High Court should have exercised its D
inherent jurisdiction and power to quash FIR-Thus, thelc:omplaint and the
cognizance of offence taken liable to be quashed-Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 406, 419, 420 and 120 B.

Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., (1999] 8 SCC
686, distinguished. E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 632 of 2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.2005 of the High Court of
Judicature at Patna in Cr!. Misc. No. 11930 of 2004. F
Braj Kishore Mishra for Ms. Aparna Jha for the Appellants.

Tarkeshwar Nath, P.K.Mishra, K.K. Rai, Ranjan, K. Pandey and Gopal
Singh for the Respondents.
G
The Order of the Court was delivered by

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. : Special leave granted.

This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13. 1.2005 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc. No. 11930 of 2004 H
329
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C. seeking quashing of the o~der dated 8.8.2003 of the Judicial Magistrate,
Gaya, in Complaint Case No.298/2003 - T.R. No.80812003.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainant Umesh
Kumar Singh - respondent No. I herein, filed a complaint against the
B appellants before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, inter alia alleging that
Smt. Ram Biraji Devi appellant No. I herein, was allotted MIG Plot No. M-
27 situated in Housing Board Colony, Gaya. In July 2002, both the appellants
represented to the complainant that they were badly in need of money and
wanted to transfer the allotted plot to some person interested to purchase the

c said plot. The complainant expressed his willingness to purchase the plot.
It was alleged that the parties orally agreed that the complainant would pay
to the appellants a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs as price of the plot and on payment
of the said amount, the appellants would transfer the plot in favour of the
complainant.

D It was also alleged that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.80,000/- to
the appellants as consideration amount of the sale price of the plot on
different dates between 15.7.2000 and 15.12.2002. The appellants alleged
to have made promises to the complainant that they would execute a written
agreement in favour of the complainant on 15.1.2003, but since they failed
to execute the agreement on 20.12003, the complainant along with three
E other persons went to the house of the appellants and enquired about the
reason for delay in execution of the agreement. The appellants flatly denied
acceptance of Rs.80,000/- and refused to transfor the plot in favour of the
complainant. On the basis of the above premise, a criminal complaint dated
nil came to be filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, against
F the appellants.

It appears from the record that Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaya,
recorded the statements of the complainant and his witnesses on 19.4.2003
and thereupon took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406, 419, 420
and 120-B of Indian Penal Code vide order dated 8.8.2003.
G
Being aggrieved against the order of taking of the cognizance by the
Judicial Magistrate the appellants approached the High Court of Patna under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. praying for quashing of the cognizance taken
by the Magistrate. The High Court by the impugned order dated 13.1.2005
dismissed the said petition. Hence, this appeal by way of special kave.
H
RAM BIRAJI DEVI v. UMESH KUMAR SINGH [PANTA, J.] 331

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material A
on record. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Hon 'hie
High Court has failed to appreciate that on bare perusal of the contents of
the complaint, no offence is made out against the appellants and the
complaint filed by the complainant is ma/a fide, false and frivolous against
appellant No.I, who is stated to be about 70 years old lady and is suffering
from heart disease, whereas the appellant No.2 was working in New Delhi B
at the relevant time and had gone to Bombay to look after his ailing sister,
Manju Tripathi, who was suffering from cancer, on the date of occurrence
as alleged in the complaint. According to the learned counsel, the dispute
involved in the alleged complaint is of civil nature and none of the acts
allegedly committed by the appellants gave rise to any criminal liability. c
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant contended
that the contents of the complaint would disclose the commission of the
cognizable offence and this Court at the preliminary stage would not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
of the allegations made in the complaint. He also contended that mere fact D
that a dispute is of civil nature could not be made a ground for quashing the
complaint or FIR. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon a
decision of this Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal &
Ors., [1999] 8 SCC 686.

We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the
E
respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. On examination
of the contents of the complaint, we find that there is not even a whisper
of allegation or averment made therein constituting an offence for which
cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate against the appellants.
On the one hand, the complainant himself has stated in the complaint that F
oral agreement to sell the plot took place in July 2002 and on the other hand,
he has alleged that he started paying the consideration amount for the
purchase of the plot between 15.7.2000 and 15.12.2002. The version of
-q the complainant is self-contradictory and, therefore, no prima facie case is
made out against the appellant involving them in the commission of the
alleged offences.
G

The learned Magistrate in his order has categorically stated that the
perusal of the complaint would make it clear that there was a dispute in
respect of sale and purchase of land between the parties. Jn our view even
if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be true and correct, H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the appellants cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating or
criminal breach of trust. Neither any guilty intention can be attributed to
them nor there can possibly be any intention on their part to deceive the
complainant. No criminal case is made out by the complainant against the
appellants in his complaint and in the statements of the complainant and his
witnesses recorded by the Magistrate before taking of the cognizance of the
B alleged offences. The avennents of the complaint and the statements of the
complainant and his witnesses recorded by the Magistrate would amount to
civil liability inter se the parties and no criminal liability can be attributed
to the appellants on the basis of the material on record. In Trisuns Chemical
Industry's case (supra), relied upon by the complainant, this Court held as
C under:

"Quashing of FIR or a complaint in exercise of the inherent powers
of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions.
Merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude
it of its criminal outfit. The provision incorporated in the agreement
D for referring the disputes to arbitration is not an effective substitute
for a criminal prosecution when the disputed act is an offence.
Arbitration is a remedy for affording reliefs to the party affected by
breach of the agreement but the arbitrator cannot conduct a trial of
any act which amounted to an offence albeit the same act may be
connected with the discharge of any function under the agreement.
E
Hence. those are not good reasons for the High Court to axe down
the complaint at the threshold itself. The investigating agency
should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the
allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of
such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases."
F
There cannot be any disagreement to the well-settkd proposition of
law that the High Court should exercise its inherent powers in extreme
exceptions to quash an FIR or a complaint. The ratio as laid down in Trisuns
Chemical Industry's case (supra) is of no help and assistance to the
complainant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The
G complaint instituted does not disclose that an offence under Section 420 is
made out. Cognizance taken by the Magistrate thereon against the appellants
for offences uiSs. 406/419/420 and 120-B !PC are clearly an abuse of the
process of court and interference by this Court is expedient in the interest
of justice This is a case of extreme exc.:ption where the High Court ought
H to have exercised its inherent jurisdiction and power to set aside the
RAM BIRAJ! DEVI v. UMESH KUMAR SINGH [PANTA, J.] 333

unwarranted and unjustified order of the Magistrate impugned before it by A
the appellants.

For the aforementioned reasons, we quash the impugned order of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 13.01.2005 passed in Criminal Misc.
No.11930 of 2004. Consequently, the complaint filed by the Complainant
and subsequent order dated 8.8.2003 of the Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in B
Complaint Case No.298 of 2003 T.R. 808/03 whereby and whereunder
cognizance of offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 120-B, IPC, has been
taken against the appellants and summons have been ordered to be issued
against them for facing trial for the above-said offences shall also stand
quashed. C
The appeal stands allowed accordingly.

N.J. Appeal allowed.

D

........