High Court ought to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the criminal complaint and proceedings: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court stated that the High Court ought to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the criminal complaint and proceedings.
Background
The dispute relates to House at Kanpur Road, Jhansi, which as per the complainant, was purchased in the name of Shravan Kumar Gupta, who was minor at that time, by means of a registered sale deed and through the ostensible owner, the de-facto complainant purchased the property by registered sale deed, but prior thereto, a family settlement took place in the family comprising of Ram Kumari, widow of Raja Ram Gupta and her four sons, namely, Ramesh Chandra Gupta, Ashok Kumar, Shravan Kumar and Vinod Kumar and a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) was executed between the parties and in terms of the MOU, the house came in the share of Vinod Kumar Gupta and while the Original Suit filed at the instance of Vinod Kumar Gupta was pending adjudication, the ostensible owner Shravan Kumar Gupta executed a registered sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant and according to the informant/second respondent, who is the vendee of the registered sale deed, possession by title in favour of Shravan Kumar Gupta over the house in dispute came to be transferred in his favour and possession of the same was also handed over to him(de-facto complainant).
Arguments
Counsel for the appellants submitted that from the very perusal of the complaint on which the FIR came to be registered, there is no commission of offence at all made out against the present appellants for the simple reason that Shravan Kumar Gupta had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant and it was pleaded by him that the very subject property of which sale deed was executed in favour of the de-facto complainant by Shravan Kumar Gupta is in possession of Vinod Kumar Gupta who is claiming to be the owner of the property on the strength of MOU entered into between the family and the present appellants are neither parties to the agreement, nor were they witness and/or facilitators in execution of the sale deed nor in possession of the subject property and none of the three appellants are directly and indirectly connected in reference to the transaction where Shravan Kumar Gupta executed a sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant by registered sale deed and even in the civil suit which has been filed by the de-facto complainant, the present appellants were not the defendants/parties to the proceedings, although he later withdrew the suit.
Decision
The division bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar noted that the pith and substance of the complaint of the de-facto complainant/second respondent is that the subject property was sold by the ostensible owner, Shravan Kumar Gupta, in reference to which registered sale deed was executed in his favour, but he was later dispossessed from the subject property.
It was observed by the court that the High Court under the impugned judgment has even failed to examine as to what was the complaint and how the present appellants are, in any manner, concerned with the so-called alleged commission of crime, but after recording superficial observations regarding the scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC dismissed the petition under the order impugned.
The court said that the present case is fully covered by categories (1) and (3), as enumerated in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others.
“A bare perusal of the complaint on the basis of which FIR came to be registered at the instance of the de-facto complainant/second respondent does not disclose any act of the present appellants or their participation in the commission of crime” the court added.
It was viewed by the court that in the facts and circumstances, the High Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the criminal complaint and proceedings in consequence thereof qua the present appellants.
Case title: Ramesh Chandra Gupta v/s State of U.P. & Ors.
Citation: SLP(Crl.) No(s).39 of 2022
Date: 28.11.2022
