Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 418, 419, 420, 467 & 468 and 471 – A plot was owned by the father of the 2nd respondent and appellant claimed purchase of such plot by sale deed dated 29.12.1993 which was registered on 05.01.1994 – Father of the 2nd respondent died in the year 1997 – In 2008, the 2nd respondent filed a suit against the appellant and sought cancellation of sale deed – In 2012, 2 nd respondent also filed a complaint against the appellant alleging offences u/ss. 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC – Applications filed by the appellant for discharge were rejected – Subsequently, application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. was filed for quashing the above proceedings, however, the same was rejected by the High Court – On appeal, held: The registered sale deed of the property in question was of the year 1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit in the year 2008 seeking cancellation of sale deed – There was no allegation of impersonation or forgery of signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent – Though the suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2nd respondent filed criminal complaint in the year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation – When the matter is pending in the Civil Court regarding the validity of the sale deed, it is for the Civil Court to decide whether any fraud was played or not by the appellant, on the late father of the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed – When the same issue was seized up before the Civil Court, the 2nd respondent cannot pursue criminal proceedings against the appellant for alleged offences u/ss. 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC – Having regard to serious factual disputes which were of civil nature, for which civil suits were pending, allowing the 2 n d respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law – Therefore, criminal proceedings quashed.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: At the outset it is to be noted that the appellant has purchased the plot in question by sale deed dated 29 th December,1993 which was registered on 5th January, 1994. The father of the 2nd respondent died on 3rd December, 1997. Though the registered sale deed is of 1994, the 2nd respondent filed suit which is pending in O.S. No.160 of 2008, only in the year 2008 seeking cancellation of sale deed alleging that the aforesaid sale deed was got executed by the appellant and his brother, by making use of the acquaintance with his father, in a false and fraudulent manner. There is no allegation of impersonation or forgery of signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the appellant that even the 2nd respondent is a signatory to the sale deed as a witness. Though the suit was filed in the year 2008, the 2nd respondent has chosen to file the criminal complaint only in the year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation. With regard to the validity of the sale deed, matter is seized up before the competent civil court and it is for the civil court to decide whether any fraud is played or not by the appellant, on the late father of the 2nd respondent for obtaining the sale deed. When the very same issue is seized up before the civil court, the 2nd respondent cannot pursue criminal proceedings against the appellant for alleged offence under Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Although, it is contended by the 2 nd respondent that complaint filed is not barred by limitation but at the same time it appears, there is no reason for lodging private complaint in the year 2012. The sale deed on which basis the title and possession is claimed by the appellant was registered on 5th January, 1994, suit itself is filed nearly after 14 years. Even after filing of the suit on 24th August, 2008 there is further about 4 years’ delay in filing the criminal complaint against the appellant herein. Allowing the proceedings to go on against the appellant who is stated to be about 87 years, in the above set of facts, is nothing but abuse of the process. It is to be noted that there is no allegation of impersonation and forgery of the signatures in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent. In any event, when the suit filed by the 2nd SEC. HOME DEPARTMENT
respondent for cancellation of sale deed, is pending consideration before the competent court of law, the 2 nd respondent cannot pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings by improving his case. Having regard to serious factual disputes which are of civil nature, for which civil suits are pending, allowing the 2 nd respondent to pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of the process of law. For the aforesaid reasons this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings are fit to be quashed by allowing this appeal. [Para 9] [149-F-H; 150-A-F]
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.