Criminal
complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made
therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence
alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the
criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[L.
NAGESWARA RAO] AND [M.R. SHAH] JJ.
February
12, 2019.
Criminal
Appeal No. 255 of 2019
(Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7513 of 2014)
SAU.
KAMAL SHIVAJI POKARNEKAR ....
Appellant(s)
Versus
THE
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ….Respondent(s)
J
U D G M E N T
L.
NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave
granted.
1.
The Trial Court issued process to the
Respondents in the complaint filed by the Appellant. The Writ Petition filed by
the Respondents against the issuance of process was allowed. The High Court set
aside the process issued by the Trial Court as affirmed by the Revisional Court
in the Criminal Writ Petition filed by the Respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the
Appellant has filed this appeal.
2.
It was alleged by the complainant that her
father Shamrao Nalavade expired on 17.01.1994. The Respondents were accused of
forgery and preparing false documents on the basis of which a development
agreement dated 11.12.2002 came into existence. On the basis of the above
facts, thecomplainant alleged that the Respondents made themselves liable for
being prosecuted under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’). The complaint that
was filed on 18.11.2008 was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The police submitted a report stating that the
matter appeared to be of a civil nature.
3.
The Trial Court recorded the statement of the
husband of the Appellant and directed issuance of process to the Respondents.
The Respondents filed a revision challenging the issuance of process against
them which was dismissed. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the
Respondents, holding that the dispute is of a civil nature, and criminal
proceedings against the Respondents would be an abuse of the process of law.
The High Court recorded a finding that the disputed document cannot be stated
to be a sham document, as Shamrao during his lifetime stated on oath that he
had handed over the possession of the land to the Respondents. The submission
made on behalf of the Respondents that the matter is entirely of a civil nature
was accepted by the High Court.
4.
The only point that arises for our consideration
in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by
which process was issued. It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage
of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only
with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out
whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons.
The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material
or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not
undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction
or not1.
1 Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta and Ors. 2015 (3) SCC 424.
5.
Quashing the criminal proceedings is called
for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous,
vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not
constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it
is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous
analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the
case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the
complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement
made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be
no justification for the High Court to interfere2.
2 State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Anr. 2002 (3) SCC 89
6.
Defences that may be available, or
facts/aspects which when established during the trial, may lead to acquittal,
are not grounds for quashing the complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the
only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the
ingredients of a criminal offence or not3.
3 Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, 2006 (6) SCC
736
7.
Relying upon the aforementioned judgments of
this Court, Mr. M. N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant
submitted that the High Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in setting
aside the order of the Trial Court by which process for summoning the accused
was issued. He further submitted that the evaluation of the merits of the
allegations made on either side cannot be resorted to at this stage.
8.
Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 and 8 to 11 submitted that a proper evaluation
of the material on record would disclose that the complaint is frivolous. He
submitted that the dispute is essentially of a civil nature and the ingredients
of the offences that are alleged against the Respondent are not made out. By making
the above statement, Mr. Basant commended to this Court that there is no
warrant for interference with the judgment of the High Court.
9.
Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and
examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High
Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing
summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima
facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or
otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the
initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the
proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of
the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations
made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence
alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the
criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
10.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the
judgment of the High Court is set aside.