Page 1

“  REPORTABLE”   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.815 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1332 of 2007)

Sarabjit Singh …. Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors. …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Sarabjit  Singh,  the  appellant  herein,  purchased  30  kanals  11  

marlas of land from Salamat Masih through two deeds dated 11.2.1992  

and 13.3.1992.   The pleadings in the instant  appeal  reveal,  that  the  

aforesaid purchase made by the appellant was out of a total holding of  

99 kanals (with the vendor Salamat Masih).  It is not a matter of dispute,  

that on purchasing 30 kanals 11 marlas of land, the appellant Sarabjit  

Singh set up a brick kiln on the land for manufacture of bricks.  Itpal  

Singh (respondent no. 4 herein) and his brother Gurbinder Singh also  

purchased 61 kanals 3 marlas of land from Salamat Masih (the vendor  

of  Sarabjit,  the  appellant  herein).   The  instant  purchase  was  made  

through two sale deeds dated 17.3.1997 and 4.4.1997.  It is accepted  

by the parties, that the land purchased by Sarabjit Singh, the appellant  

1

Page 2

herein,  adjoins  the land purchased by Itpal  Singh (respondent  no.  4  

herein) and his brother Gurbinder Singh.

3. The first litigation between the parties was initiated by Salamat  

Masih.  He filed a civil suit on 20.4.1995 against the appellant Sarabjit  

Singh.  The principal prayer made by Salamat Masih in the aforesaid  

suit was, for a direction to the appellant Sarabjit Singh, not to interfere in  

his land measuring 61 kanals 3 marlas.  It would be pertinent to mention  

at this juncture, that it was the instant land which was subsequently sold  

by  Salamat  Masih  to  Itpal  Singh  and  his  brother  Gurbinder  Singh  

(through  the  said  two  registered  sale  deeds,  dated  17.3.1997  and  

4.4.1997).  In the written statement filed by Sarabjit Singh in response  

to the suit filed by Salamat Masih, Sarabjit Singh admitted, that he had  

only  purchased  32  kanals  of  land,  out  of  the  total  land  holding  of  

Salamat Masih.  Interestingly,  in his written statement,  Sarabjit  Singh  

(the  appellant  herein)  did  not  aver,  that  he  had  entered  into  an  

agreement to purchase any further land from Salamat Masih.

4. In the above-mentioned suit preferred by Salamat Masih, the Civil  

Court passed an interim order of status quo on 3.2.1998.  At the time of  

passing of the aforesaid interim order, the land in question was already  

in possession of Itpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein) and his brother  

Gurbinder Singh.  At this juncture, it is necessary to reiterate, that Itpal  

Singh and Gurbinder Singh had purchased the instant 61 kanals and 3  

marlas of land from Salamat Masih (through the said two registered sale  

deeds,  dated 17.3.1997 and 4.4.1997).   In  view of  the interim order  

2

Page 3

passed  in  the  civil  suit,  Itpal  Singh  and  Gurbinder  Singh  were  not  

adversely  affected  by  the  dispute  between  Salamat  Masih  and  the  

appellant  Sarabjit  Singh.   Despite  that,  the  appellant  Sarabjit  Singh  

assailed the order dated 3.2.1998 (passed by the Civil Court requiring  

the parties to the litigation to maintain status quo), before the District  

Judge.   The District  Judge vide order dated 5.5.2000,  dismissed the  

challenge raised by the appellant Sarabjit Singh.  It is not a matter of  

dispute,  that  the  aforesaid  order  dated  5.5.2000  was  not  further  

challenged by the appellant Sarabjit Singh, and must therefore, for all  

intents and purposes, be deemed to have attained finality between the  

rival parties.

5. It is apparent from the factual position noticed hereinabove, that  

Salamat Masih had initiated the process of litigation between the parties  

by  filing  the  said  civil  suit  against  the  appellant  Sarabjit  Singh  on  

20.4.1995.  About three years thereafter, the appellant Sarabjit Singh  

also filed a civil suit on 8.1.1998 against Salamat Masih (and others,  

including  Itpal  Singh  and  Gurbinder  Singh),  for  specific  performance  

and possession.  The relief of specific performance was claimed by the  

appellant Sarabjit Singh on the basis of a deed dated 13.3.1992.

6. It seems, that the appellant Sarabjit Singh was on the back foot  

with reference to the litigation pertaining to 61 kanals 3 marlas of land  

purchased by Itpal Singh and Gurbinder Singh (through the said two  

registered  sale  deeds,  dated  17.3.1997  and  4.4.1997).   The  instant  

inference is based on the fact, that Salamat Masih had filed his suit on  

3

Page 4

20.4.1995, wherein an order of status quo was passed on 3.2.1998.  As  

against the aforesaid, the appellant Sarabjit Singh had also filed a civil  

suit on 8.1.1998.  However, he was not successful in getting any interim  

order in his favour.   It  is,  therefore,  that  on 10.1.1998,  the appellant  

Sarabjit  Singh  lodged  a  first  information  report  at  Police  Station  

Adampur  in  district  Jalandhar.   The aforesaid  first  information  report  

was lodged under  Sections 420,  379,  427,  506,  148 and 149 of  the  

Indian Penal Code.  The entire claim of the appellant Sarabjit Singh in  

the aforesaid first information report was founded on an agreement to  

sell  in  furtherance  whereof  it  is  alleged,  that  Salamat  Masih  had  

received from him a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as consideration.  However  

interestingly,  neither  the  date  of  the  agreement  to  sell  had  been  

depicted in the complaint made by Sarabjit Singh, nor the same was  

produced  by  him  at  the  time  of  the  registration  of  the  above  first  

information report.

7. Threatened  with  the  registration  of  the  first  information  report  

referred  to  above,  Itpal  Singh (respondent  no.  4  herein),  his  brother  

Gurbinder  Singh  and  the  vendor  Salamat  Masih  (besides  others  

implicated  in  the  first  information  report)  preferred  Criminal  

Miscellaneous no.4994-M of 1998, before the High Court of Punjab &  

Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court).  The  

prayer  made in  the  aforesaid  Criminal  Miscellaneous  no.  4994-M of  

1998, was for grant of anticipatory bail, under Section 438 of the Code  

of Criminal Procedure.  By an order dated 24.7.1998, the High Court  

4

Page 5

granted interim bail to all the petitioners.  On 24.7.1998, the High Court  

confirmed the aforesaid order of bail.

8. Itpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein) and his brother Gurbinder  

Singh,  preferred  a  complaint  before  the  Senior  Superintendent  of  

Police, Jalandhar, alleging that they were being unnecessarily harassed  

by the police, in furtherance of the first information report lodged by the  

appellant Sarabjit Singh.  In continuation with the aforesaid complaint,  

the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar marked an enquiry into  

the matter  to the Superintendent of  Police (City-II),  Jalandhar.   Even  

though a copy of the aforesaid report was available (on the file of the  

High Court, as annexure P-8), the same has not been placed on the  

record of the instant case.  Nevertheless, it is relevant to mention, that  

with reference to the aforesaid report, the High Court had remarked that  

the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar had concluded, that the  

case registered by the appellant Sarabjit Singh was only to pressurize  

Itpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein), his brother Gurbinder Singh and  

Salamat Masih.   

9. Despite  the  aforesaid  favourable  report,  Itpal  Singh  and  his  

brother  Gurbinder  Singh  were  repeatedly  summoned  by  the  police  

authorities.   In  the  aforesaid  view  of  the  matter,  Itpal  Singh  and  

Gurbinder  Singh again  approached the High Court  by  filing Criminal  

Miscellaneous  no.  22198-M  of  2000.   The  aforesaid  Criminal  

Miscellaneous Petition was disposed of by the High Court on 10.1.2002.  

5

Page 6

The  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  is  self-explanatory,  and  is  

accordingly being extracted hereunder:-

“Allegation  of  the  petitioner  is  that  he  is  being  repeatedly  summoned  in  the  office  of  S.P.  (D),  Jalandhar,  without  any  jurisdiction.   This  grievance  will  be  looked  into  by  the  S.S.P.,  Jalandhar on a fresh representation being made by the petitioner  and the same will be disposed of within six months of its filing.

Disposed of accordingly.”

It  seems, that the matter  was then placed before the Deputy District  

Attorney, Jalandhar, for consideration.  As per the report of the Deputy  

District Attorney, Jalandhar, the appellant Sarabjit Singh had not been  

able to establish the execution of any agreement to sell, in his favour.  

In  the  aforesaid  view  of  the  matter,  the  Deputy  District  Attorney,  

Jalandhar,  in a separate report,  reiterated the conclusions which had  

already been drawn by the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar  

(in his report, referred to in the foregoing paragraph).

10. Despite  the  factual  position  noticed  hereinabove,  having  

concluded its investigation in the matter, the police presented a report  

under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before a court of  

competent  jurisdiction,  so  as  to  initiate  criminal  proceedings  against  

Itpal Singh (respondent no. 4 herein), Gurbinder Singh, Salamat Masih  

and others.  The process of initiation of criminal proceedings against the  

appellant was assailed by Itpal Singh and others by preferring Criminal  

Misc.  no.  3039-M of  2002.   The  following  order  was  passed  in  the  

aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous no. 3039-M of 2002 on 11.2.2002:-

6

Page 7

“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that report under Section  173 Cr.P.C. has been presented before the trial court in FIR 4 dated  January 10, 1998 under Section 420/379, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC.

It is further contended that the alleged occurrence had taken place on a  parcel of land measuring 61 kanals 3 marlas which had been sole by  the owner Salamat Masih to the petitioner and his brother vide two sale  deeds dated March 17, 1997.  On the other hand the possession of this  land was claimed by  the  complainant  (respondent  4  herein)  on  the  basis of an agreement to sell.  In the recital of the FIR the complainant  stated that “for the balance of 61 kanals 2 marls, I had entered into an  agreement  to  sell  with  Salamat  Masih  for  digging  earth  and  for  purchasing the said land.  That the whole of the land measuring 91  kanals  13  marlas  is  situated  in  village  Dhogri  and  possession  was  given to me in 1990.”

Significantly, no details of the agreement to sell have been mentioned.  FIR does not disclose any date, area of land covered by agreement,  the rate per kanal or purchase price, the date on which the sale was to  be  concluded  etc.,  which  are  all  important  ingredients  of  any  agreement to sell.

In the main petition the petitioner is seeking relief on the basis of report   of SP, Annexure P-7 in which on investigation it was found that the  petitioner had not committed any offence.

On January 23, 2002 notice of motion was ordered to be issued for  February 28, 2002.

In the interim period, proceedings before the trial court on the basis or  report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. shall remain stayed.”

(emphasis is ours)

It is therefore apparent, that the trial Court was restrained by the High Court  

from proceeding against Itpal Singh and others.

11. Simultaneously  with  the  proceedings  mentioned  hereinabove,  Itpal  

Singh preferred Criminal Miscellaneous no. 32871-M of 2002 under Section  

482 of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  for  quashing the  first  information  

report lodged by the appellant Sarabjit Singh.  After obtaining the response of  

the appellant Sarabjit Singh (who was arrayed as respondent no. 4), the High  

Court,  vide its order dated 20.11.2006, quashed the first information report  

dated 10.1.1998 (lodged by the appellant Sarabjit Singh with Police Station  

Adampur in district Jalandhar).  

7

Page 8

12. The order passed by the High Court dated 20.11.2006, quashing the  

first information report dated 10.1.1998 referred to above, has been assailed  

by the appellant Sarabjit Singh before this Court, through the instant criminal  

appeal.

13. We  have  given  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the  submissions  

advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant.  Primarily, the  

contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was, that the High Court  

had prematurely, invoked its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of  

Criminal  Procedure and quashed the first  information report  lodged by the  

appellant  Sarabjit  Singh  without  considering  the  allegations  made  by  the  

appellant.  It  was submitted, that a large number of questions of fact were  

involved in the allegations contained in the complaint filed by the appellant,  

specially in view of the factual position adopted by the respondents.  The truth  

or  falsity  of  the matter,  according  to  the learned counsel  representing  the  

appellant, could only have emerged after the prosecution was permitted to  

lead its evidence.  It was submitted, that persons against whom allegations  

have been levelled in the first information report, would then have had ample  

opportunity  to  rebut  the  prosecution  evidence  and  substantiate  their  

innocence.  The contention in nutshell was, that in the above situation, justice  

would have been rendered to both parties.  It is, therefore, the submission of  

the learned counsel for the appellant, that the High Court was not justified in  

invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  

to quash the aforesaid first information report, dated 10.1.1998.

14. We  have  given  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the  submissions  

advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant.  The entire  

claim of the appellant Sarabjit Singh is based on an agreement to sell.  The  

first information report lodged by the appellant Sarabjit Singh on 10.1.1998 at  

8

Page 9

Police Station Adampur, district Jalandhar, did not even disclose the date of  

the aforesaid agreement to sell.   According to the averments made by the  

appellant Sarabjit Singh before the High Court, and now before this Court, it is   

alleged that the aforesaid agreement to sell was executed on 13.3.1992.  With  

reference to the abovesaid agreement to sell, the observations made by the  

High Court in its order dated 11.2.2002 (in Criminal Miscellaneous no. 3039-M  

of 2002) are extremely significant.  The aforesaid order has been extracted  

hereinabove.  The High Court,  while granting interim relief,  had taken into  

consideration the fact, that the appellant Sarabjit Singh had not enclosed a  

copy  of  the  alleged  agreement  to  sell.   He  had  given  no  details  of  the  

agreement to sell.  He did not disclose any date of the alleged agreement to  

sell.  He did not even mention the area of land covered by the agreement, or   

the rate at which the land was agreed to be purchased.  The High Court also   

noticed, that the date on which the sale was to be concluded, besides other  

similar issues, had also not been disclosed by the appellant Sarabjit Singh, in  

his complaint.  While recording that the aforesaid were important ingredients  

for any agreement to sell,  and while noticing that the same had not been  

disclosed  by  the  appellant  Sarabjit  Singh,  the  High  Court  had  stayed  the  

proceedings before the trial Court.  Despite such strong observations made by  

the High Court in its order dated 11.2.2002, and inspite of the fact that the  

same is the actual basis for all the allegations which the appellant has chosen  

to  level  against  Itpal  Singh  (respondent  no.  4  herein),  Gurbinder  Singh,  

Salamat Masih and others, the said agreement to sell has still not been  

placed on the record of the case, nor have the aforesaid details been  

furnished.

9

Page 10

15. The impugned order passed by the High Court makes a specific  

mention of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (City-II),  

Jalandhar,  wherein  it  was  sought  to  be  concluded,  that  the  first  

information report had been registered by the appellant Sarabjit Singh  

only  to  pressurize  Itpal  Singh  (respondent  no.  4  herein),  Gurbinder  

Singh, Salamat Masih and others.  The aforesaid report was available  

on  the  record  of  the  High  Court  as  annexure  P-8.   An  effective  

determination of  the present  controversy,  therefore,  could have been  

made only upon a perusal of the aforesaid report.  Unfortunately, the  

aforesaid report has not been placed on the record of the case by the  

appellant  Sarabjit  Singh.   In  the  aforesaid  view  of  the  matter,  an  

adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the appellant Sarabjit  

Singh, and the finding recorded by the High Court on the basis of the  

aforesaid report of the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar, that  

the instant  case had been registered by the appellant  Sarabjit  Singh  

only  to  pressurize  Itpal  Singh,  Gurbinder  Singh,  Salamat  Masih  and  

others, has inevitably to be reiterated.  Consequent upon the disposal of  

Criminal Miscellaeous no. 22198-M of 2000 vide order dated 10.1.2002  

(extracted hereinabove), it seems, that the matter was placed before the  

Deputy  District  Attorney,  Jalandhar.   The  Deputy  District  Attorney,  

Jalandhar  also  arrived  at  a  similar  conclusion,  namely,  that  the  

appellant  Sarabjit  Singh had not  been able  to  produce  any material  

demonstrating  the  execution  of  the  alleged  agreement  to  sell  in  his  

favour.   It  has  been  expressly  noticed  by  the  High  Court  in  the  

10

Page 11

impugned  order  dated  20.11.2006,  that  even  the  Deputy  District  

Attorney, Jalandhar, in his report, upheld the earlier report submitted by  

the Superintendent of Police (City-II), Jalandhar.  Even this report has  

not been placed on the record of the case.  Herein again, an adverse  

inference is liable to be drawn against the appellant Sarabjit Singh.

16. From  the  course  of  our  narration  of  the  factual  position  as  it  

traversed before different levels of investigation and judicial scrutiny, it  

emerges that the appellant Sarabjit Singh has not been able to produce  

any material,  on the basis of which he can establish his claim.  The  

aforesaid  land  was  admittedly  been  sold  by  Salamat  Masih  to  Itpal  

Singh and Gurbinder Singh (through two registered sale deeds dated  

17.3.1997  and  4.4.1997),  i.e.  well  before  the  registration  of  the  first  

information report dated 10.1.1998 by the appellant Sarabjit Singh.  This  

is surely a case of no evidence.  It is a case where accusations have  

been levelled without supporting material.  Despite a clear indication in  

the order passed by the High Court, such supporting material has still  

not  been made available for perusal  of this Court.   Therefore,  in the  

facts  and  circumstances  of  this  case,  we  are  satisfied,  that  in  the  

absence of any material whatsoever to support the charges levelled by  

the  appellant  Sarabjit  Singh  in  the  first  information  report  dated  

10.1.1998,  the  High  Court  was  justified  in  quashing  the  said  first  

information report by invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the  

Code of Criminal Procedure.  We are also satisfied, that the conclusions  

drawn  by  the  Superintendent  of  Police  (City-II),  Jalandhar,  and  the  

11

Page 12

Deputy District Attorney, Jalandhar, that the police complaint made by  

the appellant Sarabjit Singh was solely aimed at pressurizing Salamat  

Masih,  Itpal  Singh and Gurbinder Singh (besides some others),  were  

fully justified.

17. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit  in the  

instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

…………………………….J. (P. Sathasivam)

…………………………….J. (Jagdish Singh Khehar)

New Delhi; July 1, 2013.

12