Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 – S. 482 - Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 -
Quashing of Complaint - Once the Investigating Officer submitted the Final
Report on conclusion of the investigation, the High Court was not justified in
interfering with the criminal proceedings in exercise of power under Section
482 of the Cr.PC and particularly when in the Final Report it was specifically
concluded on the basis of the material on record that a prima facie case is
made out for the offences alleged against the accused persons.
JT 2019 (1) SC 394 : 2019 (1) SCALE 583
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(L. NAGESWARA RAO) AND (M.R. SHAH) JJ.
January 22, 2019
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 118-119 OF 2019
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 41524153 of 2014]
Sau Saraswatibai .. Appellant
Versus
Lalitabai & Ors. .. Respondents
Petitioner's Advocate : Lawyer S Knit & Co
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and orders dated 22.11.2013 and
29.11.2013 in Criminal Application No.1113/2012 with Criminal Application No.919/2013
passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, by which in exercise
of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court has quashed the
criminal proceedings including the Final Report arising out of Crime No.85 of
2011, the original complainant has preferred the present appeals.
3. That the appellant
hereinoriginal Complainant filed a Criminal Complaint against the private
Respondents hereinthe original accused before the learned Magistrate alleging, inter alia, that the complainant
purchased a plot from Respondent No.1 by way of a registered sale deed in the
year 2005. After sale of the plot, the original owneraccused No.1 fraudulently
resold the plot in 2010 in favour of Accused No.2 by redesignating as “Plot No.24”.
It is required to be noted that the plot which was sold to the complainant was
numbered as “Plot No.1” in ” Survey No.121”. It was alleged that the very plot
which was sold to the complainant was sold by the owner by changing the Number
and by redesignating the same as “Plot No.24”. It was alleged that the second
purchaser Respondent No.2Accused No.2 was none other than the husband of the
original Respondent No.1Accused No.1. It was further alleged that Respondent
No.2 thereon sold the very Plot/property in 2011, in favour of the Respondent
No.3Accused No.3. Therefore, it was alleged that the all accused persons and
one another have committed offences under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471
read with Section 34 of IPC. That the learned Magistrate passed an order for
investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. That the police lodged an FIR
for the aforesaid offences. That the accused thereafter approached the High
Court to quash the FIR by way of a Petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC.
3.1 It appears that, by the time, the matter was taken up for final
hearing by the High Court, the Investigating Officer completed the
investigation in the matter and having found the prima facie case against the
accused, submitted the Final Report under Section 173 of the Cr.PC concluding
that the accused had colluded and committed offences, as alleged, under Sections
420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. Despite the fact
that, after conclusion of the investigation, a Final Report under Section 173
was submitted, by the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2013, the High Court
in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC has quashed the criminal
proceedings including the Final Report arising out of Crime No.85 of 2011 dated
02.12.2011. The High Court noted that the original Complainant also does not
press the prosecution and considered the statement made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Original Accused that Plot No.1 of Original Complainant
is distinct and has nothing to do with Plot No. 24. The High Court opined that
there is no act of criminality to cheat the complainantthe purchaser of the property.
It appears that immediately thereafter it was mentioned before the High Court
by the complainant that he desires to withdraw the statement made by him, which
was thebasis for disposal of criminal application No.1113/2012. By order dated
29.11.2013 the High Court declined withdrawal of the statement.
3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court in quashing and setting aside the criminal
proceedings including the Final Report, the Original Complainant has preferred
the present appeals.
4. Having heard the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has
quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings and the Final Report, in
exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, we are of the opinion that
the impugned order quashing the proceedings cannot be sustained.
4.2 It is required to be noted that, as such, after the
conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the Final Report
under Section 173 of the Cr.PC, concluding that the accused have colluded and
committed offences under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with
Section 34 of IPC. Once the Final Report was submitted under Section 173 of the
Cr.PC, normally the accused, if aggrieved by the Final Report shall be relegated
to approach the Magistrate for discharge. Even the High Court in the impugned
order has also observed so. Despite the above, the High Court has without
further discussing anything on merits of the Final Report has quashed the
entire criminal proceedings, including the Final Report. On reading of the impugned
order and judgment passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has
not even observed anything on merits of the Final Report and solely relying
upon the statement of the counsel for the Accused as recorded in paragraph 4,
has believed the same and has quashed the criminal proceedings and the Final
Report. Therefore, on merits also, the impugned judgment and orders passed by
the High Court deserve to be quashed and set aside. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that there was no explanation as to why the original Land OwnerAccused
No.1 sold one plot to her husband (A2) first and the same plot was sold to A3.
That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, once the Investigating
Officer submitted the Final Report on conclusion of the investigation, the High
Court was not justified in interfering with the criminal proceedings in
exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC and particularly when in the
Final Report it was specifically concluded on the basis of the material on
record that a prima facie case is made out for the offences alleged against the
accused persons. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court has clearly erred in exercise of
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC and in quashing and setting aside the
criminal proceedings including the Final Report.
4.3 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated
22.11.2013 passed in Criminal Application No.1113/2012 is hereby quashed and
set aside. Consequently, the prosecution against the Accused to proceed further
in accordance with law, and on its own merits.
5. The appeals are allowed
accordingly.