SARDAR RAVI INDER SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

                 [2024] 7 S.C.R. 127 : 2024 INSC 472

                    Sardar Ravi Inder Singh & Anr.
                                  v.
                      State of Jharkhand & Anr.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 2807 of 2024)
                                  08 July 2024
               [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       High Court whether erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by
       the appellants for quashing the complaint filed by the second
       respondent stating that the contentions raised were rejected in an
       earlier criminal revision application, which cannot be re-agitated
       and therefore, there was a bar under Section 362 of the Cr. PC.

                                   Headnotes†
       Quashing – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.362 –
       When not applicable – Suit for specific performance of the
       agreements for sale filed against the appellants by the second
       respondent and his brother was later withdrawn in view of
       the out-of-court settlement – Effect on complaint filed by the
       second respondent – Writ petition filed by the appellants for
       quashing the complaint was dismissed by the High Court on
       the ground that there was a bar u/s.362 as the contentions
       raised were rejected in an earlier criminal revision application,
       which cannot be re-agitated – Correctness:
       Held: High Court lost sight of the fact that it was a substantive
       petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing
       the complaint on the ground that the continuation of the same
       was an abuse of the process of law – The second prayer in the
       writ petition could have been hit by s.362, as the prayer was
       to quash the order on the application for discharge – But the
       first prayer was for quashing the complaint itself – Therefore,
       dismissing the first prayer in the writ petition on the ground of the
       bar of Section 362 of the Cr.PC was erroneous – Furthermore, the
       second respondent filed application in the pending suit seeking
       withdrawal thereof categorically stating that in view of the out-
       of-court settlement with the appellants, he would not lay any
       claim in any manner whatsoever over the suit properties – He
* Author
128                                                          [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       never disputed the correctness of what was stated in the said
       application, and the order passed permitting the withdrawal of
       the suit – Thus, he gave up his claim under the agreements
       and therefore, continuing the complaint would be nothing but an
       abuse of the process of law – A case was made out to quash
       the complaint – High Court fell in error in refusing to do so –
       Complaint quashed. [Paras 15, 16]

                               Case Law Cited

       State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [2004] Suppl. 6 SCR
       460 : (2005) 1 SCC 568 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India. Penal
       Code, 1860

                              List of Keywords

       Quashing, Agreements for sale; Suit for specific performance; Suit
       withdrawn/Withdrawal of suit; Out-of-court settlement; Application
       for discharge; Same contentions rejected earlier; Giving up claim
       under the agreements; Continuing the complaint would be abuse
       of process of law.

                             Case Arising From

       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2807
       of 2024

       From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2017 of the High Court
       of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WP No.243 of 2016

                          Appearances for Parties

       Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv., M/s. Legal Options, Ms. Sonia Dube,
       Shatadru Chakraborty, Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Ms. Surbhi Anand,
       Krishnan Agarwal, Tanishq Sharma, Ms. Saumya Sharma, Advs.
       for the Appellants.

       Saurabh Kumar, Ms. Rose Maria Sebi, Faisal Sherwani, Rajiv Shankar
       Dwivedi, Jayant Mohan, Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee, Ms. Adya Shree
       Dutta, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                        129

      Sardar Ravi Inder Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment
     Abhay S. Oka, J.
1.   Leave granted.
     FACTUAL ASPECTS
2.   In substance, the appellants’ prayer in this appeal is to quash the
     criminal proceedings of a complaint filed by the second respondent,
     Ganesh Kumar Agiwal. The present appellants are the trustees of
     Sardar Bahadur Sir Inder Singh (Personal Estate) Trust (for short,
     “the Trust”). The present appellants and one Gurdev Singh, as the
     trustees of the said Trust, entered into two separate agreements
     for sale dated 29th January 2001 (for short “the agreements”) in
     favour of the second respondent and one Uma Shankar Agiwal. In
     the agreements, the second respondent and Uma Shankar were
     described as the partners of Sri Mahakaleshwar Enterprises (for
     short, “the firm”). They entered into the agreements on behalf of
     the firm. Uma Shankar is the real brother of the second respondent.
3.   The second respondent and his brother Uma Shankar filed a suit for
     specific performance of the agreements against the appellants in the
     year 2005. On 8th May 2007, Uma Shankar filed an application in the
     pending suit stating that the entire advance of Rs.28,01,000/- paid
     by him and the second respondent has been received back from the
     appellants by way of a Demand Draft, and in addition, the second
     respondent and Uma Shankar received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by
     a pay order. Therefore, Uma Shankar prayed for permission to
     withdraw the suit.
4.   On 28th June 2007, the second respondent filed a complaint bearing
     C/1 Case No.1027 of 2007 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
     Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr. PC’) against the appellants and
     others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, alleging the
     commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 424
     and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). The
     foundation of the complaint was the sale transaction of property in the
     form of the agreements. In the complaint, Uma Shankar was shown
     as the first accused, and the present appellants were shown as the
     second and third accused. In the complaint, the second respondent
130                                                         [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       referred to the application dated 8th May 2007 for withdrawing the
       suit filed by Uma Shankar. He alleged that this was done without
       his knowledge by Uma Shankar in connivance with the appellant.
       He alleged that he had paid the entire advance to the appellants.
       The allegation is that the appellants failed to execute the sale deeds
       notwithstanding the agreements. Cognizance was taken by a criminal
       Court based on the above complaint on 19th July 2007. It must be
       noted here that the second respondent filed, more or less, a similar
       complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.PC against the appellants
       on 31st July 2007. The second respondent’s subsequent complaint
       bearing Case No.1248 of 2007 was dismissed by the learned Judicial
       Magistrate by the order dated 14th September 2009, in the exercise
       of power under Section 203 of the Cr.PC by holding that no case
       was made out against the appellants.
5.     Uma Shankar was transposed as a defendant in the suit for specific
       performance, who filed a written statement contending that the entire
       consideration paid to the appellants with compensation for delayed
       payment has been returned. On 11th November 2008, the second
       respondent filed an application in the pending suit, contending that
       there was a settlement between the parties and that the second
       respondent has no right, title or interest in the suit properties.
       Therefore, he prayed for a grant of permission to withdraw the suit.
       By the order dated 27th November 2008, the learned Trial Judge
       dismissed the suit for specific performance as withdrawn.
6.     In the first complaint bearing Case No.1027 of 2007, the appellants
       applied under Section 245 of the Cr.PC for discharge on the grounds
       of compromise. The application for discharge was rejected by the
       learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamshedpur, by the order
       dated 28th August 2012. The appellants preferred a criminal revision
       application against the order before the High Court of Jharkhand at
       Ranchi. The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application.
       The High Court declined to look into the application for withdrawal
       of the suit made by the second respondent, and the consequent
       order passed on the said application by the Trial Court on the ground
       that at the time of framing of the charge, the accused had no right
       to produce any documents. The Special Leave Petition filed before
       this Court by the appellants against the orders of the Trial Court and
       the High Court was withdrawn with liberty to avail such remedies
       as may be available.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                         131

      Sardar Ravi Inder Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.


7.   Thereafter, the appellants invoked a remedy before the High Court by
     filing a substantive writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
     of India for quashing the first criminal complaint. By the impugned
     order, the High Court dismissed the said writ petition on the ground
     that the same contentions had been rejected in an earlier criminal
     revision application, which cannot be re-agitated. Therefore, there
     was a bar under Article 362 of the Cr. PC.
     SUBMISSIONS
8.   The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us
     through the copy of the plaint, the application for withdrawal made by
     the second respondent and the order passed thereon by the learned
     Trial Court. He submitted that the High Court had adopted a very
     hyper-technical approach. He submitted that the learned Judicial
     Magistrate dismissed the second complaint filed by the second
     respondent by holding that no case was made out to proceed. He
     submitted that after the second respondent received all the money
     he had paid under the agreements for sale, the prosecution of the
     first complaint was nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
9.   The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent supported
     the impugned order and submitted that the High Court was correct in
     not allowing the appellants to re-open the issue, which was closed
     by the order passed in the earlier criminal revision application filed
     by the appellants. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
     state also supported the impugned order.
     CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
10. The agreements for sale were executed by the appellants and another
    Trustee of the said Trust for the sale of two properties described as
    Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ and for consideration of Rs.2.75 crores
    and Rs.1.50 crores, respectively. The averments made in paragraph
    3 of the suit filed by the second respondent and his brother, Uma
    Shankar, disclose that they paid the earnest money of Rs.28,01,000/-
    to the appellants by separate demand drafts. The allegation in the
    suit is that by another agreement dated 17th February 2004, the
    appellants agreed to execute and register the sale deed in favour
    of the second respondent and his brother regarding the properties
    subject matter of the agreements. According to the case of the second
    respondent and his brother, the suit for specific performance was
    filed as the appellants refused to execute the deed.
132                                                             [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


11. In the first complaint (subject matter of this appeal) bearing C/1Case
    No.1027 of 2007 filed by the second respondent, the facts stated
    in the plaint have been reiterated. It is alleged that the appellants
    have refused to execute the sale deed. It is claimed that as TISCO
    Ltd. had objected to the execution of the sale deed in terms of the
    agreements, a fresh agreement was executed on 17th February
    2004 on request made by the appellants. After that, the second
    respondent referred to a suit for specific performance. It is alleged
    in the complaint that the first appellant herein had executed a power
    of attorney in favour of one Kishan, who was the fifth accused and
    subsequently, on 23rd October 2005, the first appellant transferred
    the property symbolically in favour of one Ashish, who was the fourth
    accused. After that, there is a reference in the complaint to the
    application dated 8th May 2007 made by Uma Shankar to withdraw
    the suit for specific performance. The application is alleged to be a
    false document that Uma Shankar created by entering a conspiracy
    with the present appellants. Therefore, the offences punishable
    under Sections 468, 420, 406, 424 and Section 120-B of the IPC
    were alleged. Cognizance was taken on the said complaint by the
    Criminal Court. Uma Shankar was transposed as a defendant in the
    suit for specific performance.
12. What is material here is the application dated 11th November 2008,
    admittedly filed by the second respondent as a plaintiff in the suit
    for specific performance. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said application
    read thus:
          “ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
          2. That henceforthwith the plaintiff has got no manner
          of right, title, interest and possession over the suit
          properties of this suit any more he will lay any claim
          in any manner whatsoever over the suit properties of
          this suit in future.
          3. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
          the plaintiff does not want to proceed further in this suit
          and wants to withdraw the same.
          .. .. . .. … .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . … ...”
                                                          (emphasis added)
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                      133

       Sardar Ravi Inder Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.


     On 27th November 2008, the Trial Court allowed the application
     and disposed of the suit as withdrawn. In the said order, the Trial
     Court specifically recorded that the second respondent had signed
     the application. The second respondent never challenged the order
     permitting withdrawal of the suit passed on 27th November 2008.
13. The second complaint bearing no.1248 of 2007 was filed by the
    second respondent, showing the appellants as accused nos.1 and
    2 and Ashish and Kishan as accused nos.3 and 4, respectively,
    who were shown as accused nos.4 and 5 in the first complaint. By
    the detailed order dated 14th September 2009, the learned Judicial
    Magistrate held that no prima facie case was made out in the
    complaint. He also noted that the suit for specific performance was
    pending. The allegations in the second complaint were again based
    on the same agreements for sale. It is alleged that the accused
    conspired to cheat the second respondent.
14. Now, we come to the prayer made for discharge by the appellants in
    the second complaint. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate
    dated 28th August 2012 does not refer to the subsequent development
    of the second respondent withdrawing the suit based on the application
    dated 11th November 2008. In the criminal revision application
    preferred against the said order by the appellants, the subsequent
    events were pointed out regarding the settlement and withdrawal of
    the suit for specific performance. However, the High Court did not
    consider the said events by relying upon the law laid down by this
    Court in its decision in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra
    Nath Padhi 1. The High Court held that the accused was not entitled
    to produce documents at the stage of the framing charge. As noted
    earlier, the special leave petition filed by the appellants against
    the said order was withdrawn with the liberty to adopt appropriate
    remedies as available.
15. Under the liberty granted by this Court, a writ petition under Article
    226 of the Constitution of India was preferred by the appellants, in
    which the first prayer was for quashing the first complaint on the
    ground that in view of the compromise in the suit, the continuation
    of the complaint was a complete abuse of the process of law. We
    have perused the impugned order of the High Court. What the


1   [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 460 : (2005) 1 SCC 568
134                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       High Court lost sight of was that it was a substantive petition under
       Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint
       on the ground that the continuation of the same was an abuse of
       the process of law. A prayer was made in the petition for quashing
       the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, by which the
       application for discharge, made by the appellants, was rejected. In
       the earlier criminal revision application, the High Court had confirmed
       the order dismissing the application for discharge. The criminal
       revision application was rejected on the ground that the documents
       relied upon by the appellants regarding the settlement in the suit
       with the second respondent and disposal of the suit could not be
       considered while considering the prayer for discharge. While passing
       the impugned order, the High Court relied upon Section 362 of the
       Cr.PC, which reads thus:
            “362. Court not to alter judgment.— Save as otherwise
            provided by this Code or by any other law for the time
            being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment
            or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the
            same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.”
       The second prayer in the writ petition could have been hit by
       Section 362 of the Cr.PC, as the prayer was to quash the order on
       the application for discharge. But the first prayer was for quashing
       the complaint itself. Therefore, dismissing the first prayer in the writ
       petition on the ground of the bar of Section 362 of the Cr.PC was
       erroneous.
16. We have already quoted what the second respondent stated in the
    application dated 11th November 2008. He categorically stated that
    in view of the out-of-court settlement with the appellants, he would
    not lay any claim in any manner whatsoever over the suit properties.
    The second respondent never disputed the correctness of what is
    stated in the said application, and the order passed permitting the
    withdrawal of the suit. The second respondent did not challenge
    the order permitting withdrawal by filing any proceedings. When the
    second respondent stated that he would not lay any claim in any
    manner whatsoever over the suit properties, he gave up his claim
    under the agreements dated 29th January 2001. The primary grievance
    in the first complaint was that notwithstanding the said agreements,
    the appellants tried to transfer the properties to the co-accused and
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                       135

         Sardar Ravi Inder Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.


     created a false application for withdrawal of the suit dated 8th May
     2007, which was, in fact, the creation of Uma Shankar, brother of
     the second respondent.
17. As the second respondent had given up his rights under the
    agreements, it is crystal clear that continuing the complaint would
    be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, a case
    was made out to quash the complaint. The High Court fell in error
    in refusing to do so.
18. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds, and we quash C/1 Case No.1027
    of 2007, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
    First Class, Jamshedpur.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey