Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.467 468, 471, 420, 120B – Cross-FIRs filed – Subject FIR registered by the appellant against the accused persons, quashed qua the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – Interference with: Held: Impugned judgment set aside – Power of quashing of a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection – Mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute – Only because the offence was committed during a commercial transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if necessary, a trial – As per the allegation in the complaint/FIR, right from the inception of the transaction between the parties, the Appellant was misrepresented, defrauded, deceived with dishonest and fraudulent intent by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – As per the complaint/FIR, there was misrepresentation by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 right from the inception – All accused persons acted in conspiracy to deceive and cheat the Appellant with no intention of selling the subject property to the Appellant and by misrepresentation and deception they entered into multiple transactions w.r.t the subject property – FIR/complaint reveals commission of cognizable offences by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – Furthermore, in view of the contradictory defences of the accused as well as the registration and pendency of the cross FIRs, the High Court should not have limited the scope of investigation – Impugned judgment set aside – FIR against respondent nos. 2 and 3 revived. [Paras 28, 29, 31, 35, 39, 43, 46] Criminal Law – Cross FIRs – Need for holistic investigation: Held: Cross FIRs are to be holistically investigated – In cases involving cross-FIRs, it would be prudent and fair if the investigation is carried out in a comprehensive manner – The object of the investigation is the discovery of truth – In the present case, in view of cross-FIRs, the investigating authority will conclude that either the receipts in favour of the appellant are forged and fabricated or that the receipts are genuine – Complicity of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 can only be ascertained once the investigation is permitted to reach its logical conclusion. [Para 45] Agreement to Sell – Agreement to Sell in question if a Contract/Agreement to Sell – Specific performance thereof, if can be sought:
Held: Yes – Plea that the agreement to Sell in question is not a written but an oral Agreement is contrary to facts and untenable in law – The Delhi High Court whose judgments bind the parties has repeatedly treated receipts, like the receipt dated 12.04.2004, as a Contract/Agreement to Sell whose specific performance can be sought. [Para 27]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Exercise of power: Held: Power of quashing of a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection – While exercising this power, the Court must believe the averments and allegations in the complaint to be true and correct – Save in exceptional cases where noninterference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences – Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court should not be used in a routine manner according to whims or caprice. [Para 29] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.482, 468, 469 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.467 468, 471, 420, 120B – Quashing of FIR on ground of delay – When not proper:
Held: Delay in registration of the FIR for offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years cannot be the basis of interdicting a criminal investigation – Delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether the explanation is plausible or not, has to be decided by the Trial Court only after recording the evidence – The fact of misrepresentation and deception at the inception, that is, at the time of execution of the Receipt-cum-Agreement to Sell dated 12.04.2004 came to the knowledge of the Appellant (according to the complaint) only on 28.12.2021 and he filed the complaint on 12.01.2022 – Prima facie there is no delay in filing the criminal proceedings – On facts, FIR could not have been quashed on the ground of delay – Moreover, in terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C., there is no period of limitation for offences which are punishable with imprisonment of more than three years. [Paras 37, 38, 40]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.