Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rajendra Singh Tomar vs The State Of Uttarakhand Through ... on 3 December, 2019
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, Krishna Murari
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1822 OF 2019
[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 4440/2018]
RAJENDRA SINGH TOMAR & ORS. ......APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS. ....RESPONDENTS
ORDER
Leave granted.
The present appeal, by special leave, is preferred by the appellants assailing the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Writ Petition No. 104 of 2018 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition before the High Court was filed by the appellants herein, inter alia, praying for (i) quashing F.I.R. No. 446/2017 dated 03.12.2017 under Section 420, 467, 470, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) at Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar;
(ii) quashing the impugned Order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Complaint Case No. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA 330/2017 titled as “M/s Kesar Enterprises Ltd. vs. Panna Vinay Shah and Date: 2019.12.06 16:42:40 IST Reason: Others”; and (iii) directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not to harass and arrest 2 the appellants in connection with the aforesaid FIR.
The allegation made in the said FIR on behalf of Respondent No. 4 – Kesar Enterprises Ltd. against the present appellants was that the appellants have “forged” documents, namely the Memorandum of Understanding and Special Power of Attorney with fraudulent motive, which is to transfer the property belonging to the Respondent No. 4 – Company.
Having heard the arguments of learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 at length and considering the material placed before us, we are of the considered view that there is no ingredient of criminal offence mentioned in the complaint and charge-sheet. Execution of the documents between the two appellants is not disputed by the parties, albeit the fourth respondent claims that the land mentioned therein is owned by the said company and not by the second appellant. The dispute between appellant No. 2 and the fourth respondent, even if the claim of the second appellant is incorrect and wrong, at best would disclose a civil dispute. Execution of special power of attorney or memorandum of understanding by the second appellant in favour of or with the first appellant would not make the power of attorney or the memorandum of understanding a fabricated or forged document. It is to be noticed that the second appellant has stated that the land originally belonged to her father and in the year 1972 was transferred by him to her mother, and the latter in 1995 had applied for mutation of the land in her name before the Consolidation 3 Officer. The second appellant also relies upon the power of attorney executed by her mother in favour of one of the employees of the fourth respondent which was renewed in the year 2000 before being revoked in 2008. The second appellant claims ownership by way of succession on death of her mother in 2009. The fourth respondent, on the other hand, relies upon the conduct of the father of the second appellant, who at one time was one of its Directors and the factum that the fourth respondent had challenged proceedings and orders passed under the Ceiling Act before the authorities and then in the High Court. Father of the second appellant had accepted and acknowledged that the fourth respondent was the owner of the land. The fourth respondent also rely upon the power of attorney executed by the mother of the second appellant in favour of the employee of the fourth respondent.
We have referred to the aforesaid facts and assertions made by the two sides only to highlight the respective claims on the land. Clearly the dispute relates to claim of title of the land. We do not think execution of special power of attorney or signing of the memorandum relating to the land, which the fourth respondent claims is owned by them, by itself indicates and shows commission of a criminal offence. Ex facie, the allegations do not disclose commission of a criminal offence. The fourth respondent, if required and necessary, can take recourse to civil action and assert their claim and title to the land. A civil wrong need not result in a criminal offence. 4
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the Order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in Criminal Writ Petition No. 104 of 2018 is set aside. Consequently, the proceedings arising out of Order dated 28.11.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S.D.), Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 330/2017 as also the F.I.R. No. 446/2017 dated 03.12.2017 registered at Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed. We however clarify that we have not adjudicated and commented on merits of the claim regarding the title of the land.
.……….....................J [N.V. RAMANA] ………......................J [SANJIV KHANNA] ………......................J [KRISHNA MURARI] NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 03, 2019.
5
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.2 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4440/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28022018 in CRLWP No. 104/2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital) RAJENDRA SINGH TOMAR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 117543/2018 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND IA No. 78548/2018 PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 03122019 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Kapil Sankhla, Adv. Ms. Meghna Sankhla, Adv. Mr. Kumar Milind, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. P.C. Sehgal, Adv.
Mr. Vikas K. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications filed in the matter also stand disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
6