The division judge bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice J.B. Padriwala of the apex court in the case of R. Nagender Yadav Vs The State of Telangana and Anr. held that a complaint disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture.
But the High Court must see whether the dispute which is in substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence. In such a situation, if civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, as has happened in the case on hand, the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of process of court.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent no. 2 came to be the lawful owner of the disputed plot. It is not in dispute that the original complainant had purchased the said plot of land by way of a sale deed executed in his favour and the appellant is one of the attesting witnesses. One day, the complainant came to know that the said property is transferred to one resident of USA and the transfer took place by way of a sale deed. It is the case of the complainant that his signature on the alleged sale deed has been forged as a part of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the appellant herein in collusion with the other co-accused.
The complainant lodged the complaint in the Court of the First Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. The complaint came to be registered as Criminal Complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 resply of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC and prayed for quashing of the criminal prosecution. The High Court declined to quash the criminal prosecution as in its view there is a prima facie case against the appellant for being put to trial for the alleged offence.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that perfunctory investigation cannot be a ground either to quash the criminal proceedings or even to acquit the accused. The court took notice of the fact that as on date the parties are before the Civil Court. The civil suit being the Original Suit between the parties is pending wherein the contention of the complainant as a plaintiff is that no sale deed was executed, whereas the contention of the appellant herein as a defendant in the suit is that the sale deed had been executed by the complainant.
The Civil Court is therefore seized of the question as regards the legality and validity of the disputed sale deed. The matter is sub judice in the Civil Court. At this juncture and more particularly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it will not be proper to permit the criminal prosecution to proceed further on the allegation of the sale deed being forged.
That question will have to be decided by the Civil Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper having regard to what has been highlighted by us to permit the complainant to prosecute the appellant on this allegation when the validity of the sale deed is being tested before the Civil Court.
While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court has to be conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not, depends upon the nature of the act alleged thereunder. Whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not, has to be judged by the High Court.
A complaint disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether the dispute which is in substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence. In such a situation, if civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, as has happened in the case on hand, the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of process of court.
CASE NAME- R. Nagender Yadav Vs The State of Telangana and Anr
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2290 OF 2022
(arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4629 of 2021)
CORUM- Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice J.B. Padriwala
DATE- 15.12.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :