Karnataka High Court
Sumana Paruchuri vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3559 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SUMANA PARUCHURI
D/O NEKKANTI VENKATA RAO
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT PLOT NO.512Z, ROAD NO.29
JUBILEE HILLS HYDERABAD
TELANGANA - 500 033.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI ROHAN VEERANNA TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
WHITEFILED POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY:
HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. JAKKA VINOD KUMAR REDDY
S/O LATE J.NARASIMHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
ZERENE VILLAGE
HOUSE NO. 63/116
2
PHUTTAMONTHON SAI - 3 ROAD
BANGKOK, THAILAND - 10160.
REPRESENTED BY
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR. JAKKA KIRAN REDDY
S/O LATE JAKKA SRIDHAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT FORTUNE INDIRA VILLA
VILLA NO.24, SAROJINI NAGAR, GUTTALA
BEGUMPET, MADHAPUR
HYDERABAD - 500 081.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI DILJIT SINGH AHLUWALIYA, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI S.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN WHITEFIELD POLICE
STATION IN CR.NO.84/2022 (ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXURE-C) AND
COMPLAINT DATED 30.03.2022 (ANNEXURE-B) FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 108A, 387, 511, 115, 506, 120B OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.C.J.M.,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of crime in Crime No.84 of 2022 registered for offences 3 punishable under Sections 108A, 387, 511, 115, 506 and 120B of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Diljit Singh Ahluwaliya, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
The petitioner claims to have earlier married one Srinivas Paruchuri and the couple were residing at United States of America and also claims to have two children from the said wedlock. It is the averment that subsequent to the birth of the son, the husband began addicted to alcohol and started abusing the petitioner and ultimately threw her out from the matrimonial home as a result of which, the petitioner has come back to India along with her son. It is contended that from out of the savings she purchased two immovable properties at Bangalore - one at Kannamangala and the other at Whitefield and has also a property at Hyderabad. In the year 2003, it appears that the husband of the petitioner came down 4 to India and started residing with the petitioner. Again it appears that the husband began to abuse her. It is the contention of the petitioner that being unable to bear the torture she filed a divorce petition against her husband in OP.No.220 of 2006 before the Family Court at Hyderabad. The said petition was allowed and a decree of divorce came to be granted in favour of the petitioner.
During all these proceedings, the petitioner was a tenant in the premises belonging to the 2nd respondent herein.
4. During the period when the husband of the petitioner was trying to usurp the properties of the petitioner, it is contended that the 2nd respondent offered to help the petitioner if the properties are transferred to his name and the name of his brother and assured that he would ultimately re-convey the same in the name of the petitioner. The averment is that she transferred the properties belonging to her at Kannamangala and Whitefield in favour of the brother of the 2nd respondent in terms of two sale deeds dated 17-01-2006 and 19-01-2006. The brother of the 2nd respondent gifted the Whitefield property to the 2nd respondent on 4.08.2008 and the 2nd respondent sells Kannamangala property for 5 a sum of Rs.9.9 crores and shows a receipt of only Rs.2.9 crores and transfers this Rs.2.9 crores to the name of the petitioner. On 14-08-2007 the marriage of the petitioner and her husband dissolved by a decree of divorce being executed before the Family Court at Hyderabad.
5. Long after the said divorce, the petitioner marries the 2nd respondent who according to the petitioner was himself a divorcee. The petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent also began to torture her. In the year 2015, the 2nd respondent registers a civil suit in O.S.No.499 of 2015 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with his possession of the Whitefield property. The said suit comes to be dismissed on 25-02-2022 for want of maintainability. During the pendency of the said suit, the 2nd respondent appears to have left for Bangkok with his daughter from the first marriage and his mother. In the year 2019, the petitioner files a suit in O.S.No.1632 of 2019 before the competent civil Court for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from alienating the Whitefield property. The said suit was withdrawn with liberty and a new suit was filed in O.S.No.1648 of 6 2019 seeking to restrain the 2nd respondent from entering into the property. This suit also comes to be dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the suit for bare injunction could not be maintained by the petitioner.
6. During the pendency of those suits since the 2nd respondent failed to re-convey the properties at Whitefield and Kannamangala as was promised, the petitioner files a complaint before the Police at Hyderabad in Crime No.742 of 2019 and a petition filed by the 2nd respondent seeking quashment of entire proceedings before the High Court at Telangana came to be dismissed, against which, a Special Leave Petition was preferred and an interim order of stay of all further proceedings before the Court at Hyderabad was granted. The petitioner lodges another complaint in Crime No.488 of 2020 before the jurisdictional police at Hyderabad. This was also challenged by the 2nd respondent before the High Court of Telangana and was dismissed. In the SLP against the said order, the Apex Court has stayed all further proceedings in this case as well. Therefore, the proceedings instituted by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent before the 7 Courts at Hyderabad have all been stayed by the Apex Court and the matters are pending consideration. The issue herein is not with regard to those cases and cannot be so.
7. The 2nd respondent files a private complaint in P.C.R.No.108 of 2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District against the petitioner and her father alleging offences punishable under Sections 203, 208, 209, 210, 378, 425, 120(A), (B) and 420 of the IPC. The Police filed a 'B' report in the said matter. The 2nd respondent files a protest petition. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 28-02-2022 takes cognizance of the offences and registers a criminal case against the petitioner. The petitioner has called this in question before this Court in Criminal Petition No.3575 of 2022. The 2nd respondent later files a complaint before the Special Economic Offences Court at Hyderabad against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 447, 448 and 451 of the Companies Act in C.C.No.31/2021 and the same is challenged before the High Court of Telangana and the matter is pending consideration. In both these matters, it is claimed, that the 8 petitioner has engaged the services of one Sri R.Mohan and Sri Sriram Naik. It is on the basis of communications between the counsel representing the petitioner and the petitioner that has become the impugned crime. Just before registration of crime, the petitioner institutes a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the 2nd respondent in O.S.No.322 of 2022 pending before the competent civil Court at Bangalore.
8. After all these proceedings - cases counter cases; suits counter suits - the 2nd respondent complainant registers the subject complaint before the jurisdictional police on the ground that the petitioner had indulged in certain acts to eliminate the 2nd respondent in the year 2019 and has been in the same effort even as on date. It is alleged in the complaint that Sri T.Sriram Naik who had earlier represented the petitioner has informed the 2nd respondent that a conspiracy has been hatched by the petitioner in connivance with others to forcibly compel the 2nd respondent to sign documents relating to Whitefield property at gun point and to eliminate him in Bangkok. The narration in the complaint is that the petitioner had engaged the services of certain henchman to 9 eliminate him. The allegation is that Rs.25/- lakhs supari had been given to one Santoshkumar to travel to Bangkok on 9-12-2019 with his accomplices and steps were taken to abduct and eliminate the 2nd respondent. Based upon this allegation a crime comes to be registered against the petitioner in Crime No.84 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 506 and 120B of the IPC.
9. The Police after investigation seek the nod of the learned Magistrate on 8-04-2022 to include offences punishable under Sections 115, 108A, 387 and 511 of the IPC as offences in Crime No.84 of 2022. The said permission having been granted, the crime presently is for offences punishable under Sections 108A, 387, 511, 115, 506 and 120B of the IPC. It is registration of crime on 8-04-2022 that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition four days after registration of the crime. Therefore, the petition was filed at the stage when the investigation had hardly commenced.
10. The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla representing the petitioner would contend with vehemence that there are several 10 proceedings against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The impugned complaint is filed as a counter-blast to the civil suits registered and there is no explanation for the delay in filing the present case notwithstanding the fact that the 2nd respondent was aware of the proceedings throughout. He would rely upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of-
(i) STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS v. BHAJAN LAL
AND OTHERS - 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;
(ii) NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
v. STATE OF MAHARASHTREA AND OTHERS - 2021
SCC OnLine SC 315;
(iii) A.P.MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK
SHAREHOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION v.
RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND OTHERS - (2021) 9 SCC
152;
(iv) MAJOJ KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER - (2016) 9 SCC 1;
(v) KISHAN SINGH v. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS -
(2010) 8 SCC 775; and
(vi) KARAN SINGH TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH AND OTHERS - (2018)12 SCC 625.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent Mr. Diljit Singh Ahluwaliya would submit that the 11 case being registered as a counter-blast is yet to be even investigated into. Unless there are glaring circumstances, this Court would not stall the investigation or entertain a petition at this juncture, except in cases where facts are glaring enough to demonstrate that even if it is construed to be true, it would not make out an offence under the IPC. He would submit that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have several cases between them and therefore, they are all continuum of cases mutually filed against each other. The delay would not be a ground to interfere and quash the proceedings, as the complainant in his complaint has clearly brought out the events that have happened between December 2019 and how he gains knowledge about those facts on 15-03-2022, gathers the details up to 22-03-2022 and files the complaint on 30-03-2022. The contention of the learned senior counsel that the allegations made against the petitioner are absurd, improbable or untenable are all matters to be investigated into. There cannot be quashment of proceedings in cases of this nature where proceedings galore against each other. 12
12. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
13. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events or the proceedings either registered by the petitioner or by the 2nd respondent, be it civil or criminal, are not in dispute. The Court is presently concerned with the registration of the present crime which comes about on 30-03-2022. The complaint narrates certain details from 3-12-2019 and also graphically explains how the complainant comes to know about the activities of the petitioner. Though no dates are specifically mentioned, the documents appended to the petition would buttress the contention of the 2nd respondent. The complaint, insofar as it is germane to be considered of the offences narrated, reads as follows:
"It is thus clearly apparent from the aforesaid, that the accused persons abetted the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, for abetting in India to commit offence outside India by putting fear of death in order to commit extortion, hatching a criminal conspiracy to murder by the accused would have ended in crime, if not interrupted. Since the aforesaid accused person committed the 13 aforesaid offences in a planned manner in active connivance and conspiracy with each other, have deliberately committed the offences punishable under Section 115 r/w 302 IPC, Section 387 r/w 108A IPC and Sections 307, 506 & 511 r/w 120B IPC.
Your kind self, as such is humbly requested and prayed to register an FIR under Section 115 r/w 302 IPC, Section 387 r/w 108A IPC and Sections 307, 506 & 511 r/w 120B IPC and any such other provision of the IPC which may also be applicable against the accused persons. You are also humbly requested to seize the Mobile Phones, Laptops and computers of Sumana Paruchuri and Santosh Kumar and retrieve the communication between them to ascertain the full nature of the offences hatched by them. I further apprehend that the said Sumana Paruchuri will flee the country, I request your kind self to issue LOC immediately and seize her passport. Her old Passport no available with me is Q674000.
I am duly represented by my brother Mr. Jakka Kiran Reddy residing in Hyderabad on whom I have executed a GPA endorsed by the Indian Embassy at Bangkok, Thailand. He is authorized to sign any complaints/cases/ petitions on my behalf before any Government authorities in India as mentioned in the GPA. His mobile No. is 9959415000. I am available 24/7 to cooperate with the investigation and give any documentation/statement on virtual mode since I presently live in Thailand, as and when needed by your kind office."
The 2nd respondent/complainant did make a mention of all the offences that have occurred for the alleged acts of the petitioner. Based upon the said complaint, the crime initially registered was for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 120B of the IPC. Later the Police add other offences and seek the nod of the learned 14 Magistrate to add the said offences. The communication seeking to add the offences reads as follows:
" ೕಲ ಂಡ ಷಯ ಮತು ಉ ೇಖನ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ ದಂ ೆ ಾನ
ಾ ಾಲಯದ°è ¤ªÉÃ! ೊಳ$%ವ'(ೇ ೆಂದ)ೆ ! ಾಂಕ: 01.04 2022 ರಂದು ಾನ ಉಪ
-.ೕ/ ಆಯುಕರ ಕ1ೇ2, 3ೈ56ೕ78 9ಾಗ, ;ೆಂಗಳ<ರು ನಗರ ರವ2=ೆ ಈ- ೕ7
ಮೂಲಕ ?@ೕ ಜಕ ೋBಕು ಾC )ೆD8 ರವರು ಪ@ಸೂvÀ3ಾE dರ ೆ ೇF Gೌ/
ನಂ.63/116, '¥ÀÄvÀÛªÉÆAತI ¸Á¬Ä - 3 ರJೆ, ;ಾ ಂ ಾK -10160, Lೈ ಾ ಂM £À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ F-ªÉÄïï zÀÆj£À°è ¸ÀĪÀÄ£Á ¥ÀgÀÄZÀÆj , ¸ÀA ೋN ಕು ಾC, O@ ಾ ಮುಂ ಾದವರು O ಾPದು(ಾರ2=ೆ Jೇ2ದ 3ೈ5 6ೕ78 ನ ಪ'ಟRAದೂರು Cಗ@Gಾರದ ಸ3ೇP ನಂ.41 ರ. ಎರಡು ಎಕ)ೆ 31 ಗುಂTೆ ಜUೕV=ೆ 1ಾರದ. Mಳಸಂಚು ಾD Xಾ@ಣ;ೆದ2 ೆ GಾಕುZರು ಾ)ೆಂದು VೕDದ ದೂ2ನ ಬ=ೆ[ ಅಗತ PÀæಮ ೈ=ೊಳ$%ವಂ ೆ D O, 3ೈ5Oೕ78 9ಾಗ ರವರು VೕDದ ]ಾಪನದಂ ೆ ! ಾಂಕ: 05.04.2022 gÀAzÀÄ oÁuÉAiÀÄ J£ï.¹Cgï.£ÀA.153/2022 gÀ°è zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
?@ೕ ಜಕ ೋB ಕು ಾC)ೆD8ರವರು ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÀÆgÀÄ C¸ÀAeÉÕ
C¥ÀgÁಧ3ಾEರುವ'ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ!ದ2ಂದ ಕಲಂ.506, 120(©) ಐO ರDಯ. ಪ@ಕರಣ
zÁಖಲು ಾD ೊಂಡು ತV`ೆಯನುa ೈ=ೊಳ%ಲು ಅನುಮZಯನುa Vೕಡ;ೇ ೆಂದು ಾನ
ಾ ಾಲಯ ೆ ! ಾಂಕ: 07.04.2022 ರಂದು ಾನ ಾ ಾಲಯ ೆ ಮನ ಯನುa
¸À°è ಅನುಮZಯನುa ಪbೆದು ೊಂಡು ಉ ೇಖನದDಯ. ಪ@ಕರಣ (ಾಖಲು
ಾD ೊಂಡು vÀV`ೆಯನುa ೈ=ೊಂDರುತ(ೆ.
ೇ ನ 1ಾರcೆಯ ಾಲದ. ಕಲಂ:115, 108(ಎ), 387, 511 ಐO ರDಯ.
Cಪ)ಾಧ ನbೆ!ರುವ ಬ=ೆ[ ಾdZ ಕಂಡುಬಂ!ರುತ(ೆ. ಆದ2ಂದ ಾನ ಾ ಾಲಯ ೆ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.84/2022 PÀ®A.506 120(©) ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è PÀ®A.115, 108(J). 387, 511 ಐO ಅನುa ಅಡಕ=ೊe ತV`ೆಯನುa ೈ=ೊಳ%ಲು ಅನುಮZ Vೕಡ;ೇ ೆಂದು ಾನ ಾ ಾಲಯದ. V3ೇ! ೊಂDರುತ(ೆ."
15Therefore, the offences now are the ones punishable under Sections 108A, 115, 387, 506, 511 and 120B of the IPC. The FIR with the aforesaid offences is registered on 8-04-2022 and the petition is filed on 12-04-2022; there has been no progress in the investigation. It is therefore, necessary to consider the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner qua the offences so alleged. Section 108A reads as follows:
"108A. Abetment in India of offences outside India.--A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which would constitute an offence if committed in India."
Section 108A of the IPC deals with abetment in India of offences outside India. The complainant narrates in the complaint that certain amount was paid to one Sri Santoshkumar to eliminate the complainant in Bangkok and this conspiracy was hatched and executed by the petitioner. This allegation requires investigation. The other offence that is alleged is under Section 115 of the IPC which deals with abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The allegation in the complaint is that the 16 complainant was sought to be eliminated. Section 511 of the IPC reads as follows:
"511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.--Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with 2 [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with 3 [imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one- half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both."
Section 511 makes commission or causing commission of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. The allegation against the petitioner is the one punishable under Sections 115 and 387 of the IPC. Therefore, the allegation punishable under Section 511 cannot just be brushed aside. The next allegation is under Section 387 of the IPC. Section 387 has its ingredients in Section 383 of the IPC. Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury or dishonestly induces the person to deliver a property out of such fear is to be tried for extortion. The other offences are Sections 506 and 120B of the IPC which deal with criminal conspiracy and criminal intimidation. Since the offences alleged 17 are several and the facts that led to registration of the crime are manifold, it becomes impermissible for this Court to exercise its discretion to entertain the petition at this juncture - 4 days after registration of crime. The petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court even before the ink on the complaint could dry. If the complaint is noticed or the facts narrated in the petition are noticed, they bring about various activities of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent for more than a decade and are a maze of facts.
14. It is not in dispute that there are several cases filed both civil and criminal against each other and generated such squabble throughout the said decade till the date of registration of the crime. To adjudge the impugned crime to be a counter-blast, in the teeth of such manifold facts, would not be within the scope of this Court, as they are in the realm of seriously disputed questions of fact. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of KAPTAN SINGH and PRATIMA MOHANTY in the circumstances would be apposite. The Apex Court in the case of 18 KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1 has held as follows:
"9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai 1 (2021) 9 SCC 35 19 Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 :
(2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in 20 quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27- 10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC 21 with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise 22 of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."
(Emphasis supplied) Later, the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF ODISHA v. PRATIMA MOHANTY2 has held as follows:
"14. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has entered into the merits of the allegations and has conducted the mini-trial by weighing the evidence in detail which, as such, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions is wholly impermissible. As held by this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : AIR 1992 SC 604, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent an abuse of process of any court and/or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the said decision this Court had carved out the exceptions to the general rule that normally in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the criminal proceedings/ FIR should not be quashed. Exceptions to the above general rule are carved out in para 102 in Bhajan Lal (supra) which reads as under:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter 2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1222 23 XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable 42 PART E offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the 24 basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
15. Looking to the allegations in the present case against the respondents - accused and considering the fact that charge-sheet has been filed by the Vigilance Cell after a thorough investigation, it cannot be said that the case falls within any of the exceptions as carved out by this Court in para 102 in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). It cannot be said that the criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents - accused are an abuse of process of any court. On the contrary, the allegations are an instance of abuse of the powers with a mala fide intention and allotment of the plots to the family members by hatching a criminal conspiracy and to allot the plots to the family members at throw away price causing loss to the B.D.A. and the public exchequer.
16. It is trite that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal 25 proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation the charge-sheet has been filed. At the stage of discharge and/or considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the courts are not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducing the mini-trial. As held by this Court the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court."
(Emphasis supplied) In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court and tangling of facts in the case at hand which are on the face of it being seriously disputed, this Court cannot at this juncture entertain this petition. The allegations so made are a matter of investigation.
15. The submission of the learned senior counsel that the complaint itself suffers from inherent improbability cannot be considered at this juncture. The complaint cannot be said to be filled with embellishments. The judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the cases referred to supra would not lend any support to the contentions raised by the petitioner, as the petition is filed barely after 4 days of registration of the crime, which contains many offences that are alleged against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. It is difficult at this stage to 26 arrive at a conclusion that the 2nd respondent is chagrined and frustrated litigant having registered the crime after a long delay.
16. If in the opinion of the Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is that non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, it is only then the Court should interfere at the stage of investigation of offences, unless a bare look at the complaint should make it palpably or demonstrably clear that it is registered for extraneous reasons without there being any substance. The case at hand is not the one of that nature. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the proceedings. The facts between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are a maze and would amaze this Court for its interference.
17. In the result, petition lacking in merit, it is accordingly dismissed.
It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind 27 or influence the investigation to be carried out by the Police in any manner.
Consequently, I.A.No.1/2022 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp