“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law in the name of justice” - Montesquieu

The Division bench of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice J. B. Padriwala of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Nagender Yadav Vs. The State of Telangana and another¹ held that a Complaint disclosing a civil transaction may also have a criminal texture and that if a civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceedings so as to prevent abuse of process of court.

Background
The subject matter of this case is an open plot admeasuring 321 square yards situated at the village Nallagandla, District Ranga Reddy, State of Telanagana. The Respondent No.2 herein who is the Complainant claims to be the lawful owner of the said plot. It is not in dispute that the Complainant had purchased the said plot of land by way of a sale deed executed in his favour dated 09.05.2008.

It is the case of the Complainant that in the sale deed, the Appellant/Accused is one of the attesting witnesses. The Appellant also happens to be the cousin of the Complainant. All the original documents of the plot in question remained in the possession of the Appellant as necessary permissions from different authorities were to be obtained.

One fine day, the Complainant came to know that the plot in question had been transferred in favour of one Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu. In the said sale deed, the Appellant, is shown as one of the attesting witnesses. According to the Complainant, at no point of time did he execute any such sale deed in favour of Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu and a bogus and concocted sale deed dated 29.12.2010 came to made by the Appellant in collusion with Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu and one R. Nagender Yadav. It is the Complainant’s case that his signature on the alleged sale deed has been forged as a part of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the Appellant in collusion with the others above named.

In such circumstances, the Complainant filed a complaint in the Court of the First Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendernagar for an offence punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Learned Magistrate thought fit to pass an order directing the police to undertake the investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sub- Inspector of Police, Raidurgam District carried out the investigation and filed a chargesheet only against the Appellant. The other persons named above were dropped and not arrayed as accused. At the end of the investigation, the investigation agency arrived at the conclusion that the original Accused No.1 namely Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu and Accused No.2 namely Smt. Pramila Yadav could be said to be bona fide purchasers of the property for value without notice i.e., they were unaware of the title of the property during the purchase. According to the investigating agency, the person who actually impersonated the Complainant before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the disputed sale deed was found to be an unknown person.

It was also revealed that the Complainant at later point of time also instituted a Suit in the Court of District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 29.12.2010. The said suit came to instituted sometime in 2016 i.e. after the criminal prosecution came to be instituted against the Appellant. In the civil suit, the Appellant had been impleaded as the Defendant No.3.

The Appellant approached the High Court with an application filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and prayed for quashing of the criminal prosecution. The High Court declined to quash the criminal prosecution as in its view there was a prima facie case against the appellant for being put to trial for the alleged offence.

Analysis by the Court
The Hon’ble Apex Court after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the police could be said to have made a mockery of the entire investigation. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that when it is the specific case of the Complainant that at no point did he execute the disputed sale deed dated 29.12.2010 and his signature on the disputed sale deed has been forged, then the first thing the police should have done was to obtain the specimen hand writings of the Complainant so as to be compared with the disputed signature on the sale deed through a hand writing expert.

The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that the investigating agency ought to have investigated whether the sale consideration had been paid to the purchaser of the disputed plot or not and if the sale deed consideration had been paid, then in what manner. There was nothing in the records in this regard. The Hon’ble Apex Court failed to understand that on what basis the police had filed a charge sheet against the Appellant and that if a conspiracy was hatched, then in such circumstances why did the police drop the purchaser and other individuals from the chargesheet.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since the purchaser of the plot in question and others have not been arrayed as accused in the Complaint, the entire theory of criminal conspiracy collapses. The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that a civil suit is pending and therefore the matter is sub judice in the civil court.

While quashing the criminal proceedings against the Appellant, the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the High Court has to be conscious while exercising their power and should only be used for the purpose of prevention of abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Division Bench was of the view that as on date, there is no convincing legal evidence on record in the chargesheet to put the Appellant to trial for the alleged offences. The Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not, depends upon the nature of the act alleged.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded by observing that a complaint disclosing a civil transaction may also have a criminal texture but it is upon the High Court to see whether the dispute which is in substance of a civil nature is given cloak of a criminal offence. In such a situation, if civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, as has happened in this case, the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceeding so as to prevent abuse of process of court.

By - Soumya Kamat