Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –s.482 –Exercise of jurisdiction under – Respondent no.2-complainant filed complaint against nine persons including accused no.1, her brother – As per the complainant, her father was the owner of the property in question and after his death, the property was inherited by her, her three sisters and accused no.1 – She averred that her father had entered into a development agreement with a Construction Company that assigned the rights in favour of a Company represented by accused no.3, who after the death of her father tried to trespass into the property – Complaint registered – Various other complaints, suits filed by the complainant and her sisters against accused persons – Complaint also alleged that accused no.1 fabricated documents, Will – Direction for registration of FIR – Criminal petition of accused no.4 (who, allegedly, was permitted by accused no.1 to sub-lease the land in favour of accused no.5) u/s.482, dismissed – That of accused nos.5-9, allowed – Present appeals by the complainant and accused no.4 – Held: Complaint reveals disputed property claim based on inheritance between the complainant, her sisters and accused no.1 – There is no whisper in the complaint that the accused no.4 was fully aware that accused no.1 was not the sole beneficiary by inheritance and that the property had devolved upon the complainant and her sisters – Nothing to show that knowing this he collusively entered into the lease agreement with accused no.1, by creating fabricated Will – No suggestion with regard to manner of conspiracy, as alleged – Complaint itself reveals that the father of the complainant and accused no.3 had himself entered into development agreement which was cancelled during his lifetime – Issues raised reflect a civil dispute with regard to inheritance amongst the legal heirs – Dispute with regard to the inheritance can not be decided in criminal proceeding – Same can be done only in an appropriate civil proceeding – Civil proceedings with that regard are already instituted by various parties including the complainant– Further, Single Judge rightly found that there was no material to proceed against accused nos.5-9– Original accused no.4’s case is covered by categories (1) & (3) carved out by Supreme Court in the Bhajan Lal case – Also, even if the allegations are taken on face value, there is no material to proceed against him – Criminal proceedings against accused no.4, quashed – Penal Code, 1860ss.120-B, 380, 420, 448. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The complaint reveals a disputed property claim based on inheritance between the complainant, her sisters and her brother, accused No.1. The complainant also disputes with regard to the area of the property including the manner of its devolution upon the parents of the complainant and her competing interest with that of her siblings. There is not even a whisper in the complaint that the present appellant, i.e., accused No. 4 was fully aware that accused No.1 was not the sole beneficiary by inheritance and that the property had devolved upon the complainant and her sisters. Also there is nothing to show that knowing this he has collusively entered into the lease agreement with accused No.1, by creating a false and fabricated will. Though, there is a mention with regard to conspiracy, but there is not even a suggestion with regard to manner of such conspiracy. The father of the complainant and accused No.3 had himself entered into a development agreement which subsequently came to be cancelled during his lifetime. It would also reveal, that only after the lease in question was executed in favour of the appellant, the complainant has raised all these issues. The issues raised reflect a civil dispute with regard to inheritance amongst the legal heirs. It is not understood as to how a dispute with regard to the inheritance under a will and deed of confirmation can be decided in a criminal proceeding. The same can be done only in an appropriate civil proceeding. Not only that, the civil proceedings with that regard are already instituted by various parties including the complainant. Though in the complaint, the complainant had mentioned about pendency of O.S. No. 1989 of 1996 against accused No.3 and O.S. No. 1403 of 1999 against M/s Banjara Construction Pvt. Ltd., there is no reference with regard to the other proceedings. Accused No.4 has been impleaded as a partydefendant in O.S. No. 506 of 2001 only on 30.10.2009. [Paras 19-21][971-E-H; 972-A-B, E-F]
1.2 O.S. No. 239 of 2004 has already been filed by the complainant against her brother, accused No.1 and her three sisters inter alia for partition and separate possession which is stated to be pending. As such, the documents alleged to be fraudulent in the complaint will fall for consideration in the said suit. A possibility of contradictory finding in civil proceeding as against criminal proceedings cannot be ruled out. Though, the complainant had filed Writ Petition Nos. 23017/2009 and 23672/2009 to restrain construction on the plot in question, the same was dismissed on 28.10.2009. However, there is no mention with regard to the same in the complaint. The complainant and her sisters executed an agreement of sale-cum-irrevocable specific power of attorney on 20.03.2015. Various litigations have also been filed with regard to the installation of the petrol pump and grant of N.O.C. etc. The complaint was sent to the police for registration of an FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on 24.11.2010. In its final report dated 30.08.2017, the police has opined that no material had surfaced to show any conspiracy during investigation. The Learned Judge himself in Paragraph 8, has observed that it is nobodies case that the signatures on the documents in question are forged or anybody has impersonated for the purpose of cheating. The Learned Judge, having found that the entire allegations with regard to forgery and fabrication and accused No.1 executing the lease deed on the basis of the said forged and fabricated documents were only against accused No. 1, ought to have exercised his jurisdiction to quash the proceedings qua accused No. 4 also. The Learned Judge, HC, ought to have applied the same parameters to the present accused No. 4, which had been applied to the other accused whose applications were allowed, the Single Judge rightly found that there was no material to proceed against accused No. 5 – HPCL and its officers accused Nos. 6 and 9 as also accused Nos. 7 and 8, who have been roped in, only because they were the attesting witnesses. The Single Judge rightly exercised his jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The case of accused No. 4 is covered by categories (1) and (3) carved out by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal. Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on its face value, there is no material to proceed further against accused No. 4. Continuation of criminal proceedings against accused No. 4, would amount to nothing else but an abuse of process of law. As such, his appeal deserves to be allowed. The criminal appeal filed by accused No. 4 is allowed. The criminal proceedings in Crime No. 311/2010 of P.S., Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, against accused No. 4 are quashed and set aside. The criminal appeals filed by the original complainant are dismissed.[Paras 22-28][972-F-H; 973-E-G; 974C-H; 975-A] State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 – relied on.
Sardool Singh v. Nasib Kaur (1987) Supp. SCC 146 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.