Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 592 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4425 of 2014)

Ganga Dhar Kalita … Appellant

Versus

The State of Assam and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This  appeal  is  directed  against  judgment  and  order  

dated  20.3.2014,  passed  by  the  Gauhati  High  Court  in  

Criminal Petition No. 287 of 2009, whereby said Court has  

dismissed  the  petition  under  Section  482  of  the  Code  of  

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) and declined  

to  quash  the  criminal  proceedings  initiated  against  the  

appellant.

Page 2

Page 2 of 10

2. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  

perused the papers on record.

3. Brief  facts  of  the  case  are  that  a  First  Information  

Report dated 25.1.2009 was got lodged by respondent No. 3  

Rabindra  Nath  Kalita  at  Police  Station,  Panbazar,  District  

Kamrup, Assam.  It is alleged in said report that Kaustav K.  

Kalita  is  minor  son  of  respondent  No.  3.   He (Kaustav  K.  

Kalita),  respondent  No.  4  Rishi  Raj  Borgohain,  and  

respondent  No.  5  Yuva  Raj  Borgohain  are  pattadars-in-

possession  of  the  land  measuring  11  Bigha  2  Kathas  12  

Lachas of Patta No. 56, situated in Village Kamarkuchi under  

Panbari Mouza of the District.  It is further alleged that the  

complainant (respondent No. 3) came to know that appellant  

Ganga Dhar Kalita and one Birendra Kumar Das have sold  

the above mentioned land in favour of Sewali Oza, Kabindra  

Oza  and  Kaifie  Oza.   On  enquiry,  according  to  the  

complainant,  it  was  discovered  that  Ganga  Dhar  Kalita  

(appellant)  has  fraudulently  got  executed  a  power  of  

attorney  Deed  No.  2062  dated  11.4.2006  by  forging

Page 3

Page 3 of 10

signatures of Kaustav K. Kalita, Rishi Raj Borgohain and Yuva  

Raj  Borgohain.   Rishi  Raj  Borgohain  (respondent No.  4)  is  

also  signatory  in  the  First  Information  Report  given  by  

respondent No.  3 to the police.   On the above complaint,  

police appears to have registered the case as crime No. 25  

of  2009  in  respect  of  offences  punishable  under  Sections  

419, 468, 420, 471/34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. The present appellant challenged the First Information  

Report by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code on  

the ground that the dispute between the parties is of civil in  

nature.  It is also pleaded by the appellant that a title suit  

No. 477 of 2008 has already instituted by Birendra Kumar  

Das.  It is also urged that another suit No. 293 of 2009 was  

filed before the Court of Civil Judge No. 3, Guwahati, by the  

informants (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) seeking cancellation of  

the power of attorney in question.

5. However, after hearing the parties, the High Court was  

not impressed with the arguments advanced on behalf of the

Page 4

Page 4 of 10

accused (appellant), and observed that since the allegations  

made against him make out a cognizable offence, and the  

allegations  are  serious  in  nature,  as  such,  it  declined  to  

interfere  with  the  criminal  proceedings.   The  High  Court  

further opined that the complainant has not acted mala fide.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that  

since  there  are  two  suits  already  instituted,  one  filed  by  

Birendra Kumar Das and another filed by the complainants,  

as such, the criminal proceedings in the matter are nothing  

but abuse of process of law.

7. In  response  to  the  above,  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondents/complainants drew our attention to the copy of  

order dated 15.11.2011 passed in Title Suit No. 477 of 2008,  

i.e.,  one instituted by Birendra Kumar  Das.   Copy of  said  

order, which is annexure A-1 to the counter affidavit filed on  

behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, shows that Title Suit No.  

477 of 2008 was dismissed for  non-prosecution.   There is  

nothing on the record to suggest that after dismissal of the

Page 5

Page 5 of 10

suit on 15.11.2011 said suit was restored.  In view of said  

fact,  it  can  be  said  that  the  appellant  has  attempted  to  

suppress the fact that Title Suit No. 477 of 2008 has been  

dismissed.  As to the pendency of the suit No. 293 of 2009  

filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Kaustav K. Kalita, it is  

true that they have sought cancellation of general power of  

attorney Deed No. 2062 of 2006 dated 11.4.2006 purporting  

to  have  been  executed  in  respect  of  the  property  in  

question.  

8.  The allegations made in the First Information Report  

disclose  that  there  are  serious  allegations  against  the  

appellant  (accused)  that  he fraudulently  got  executed the  

power of attorney, and Kaustav K. Kalita was minor (aged  

nine years)  on the date when the deed was said to  have  

been signed by him.  It is also alleged that respondent No. 5  

Yuva Raj Borgohain, who is said to be another person who  

executed the power of attorney, was away from India on the  

date of alleged execution of the Deed.

Page 6

Page 6 of 10

9. In Arun Bhandari  v. State of Uttar Pradesh and  

others1,  this  Court  has held that  if  the allegations in  the  

First  Information  Report  are  not  frivolous,  mala  fide  or  

vexatious, it cannot be simply quashed for the reason that  

civil suit is also pending in the matter.  Paragraphs 2, 3 and  

33 of said case are reproduced below: -

“2. The  factual  score  as  depicted  is  that  the  appellant  is  a  non-resident  Indian (NRI)  living in  Germany  and  while  looking  for  a  property  in  Greater  Noida,  he  came  in  contact  with  Respondent  2  and  her  husband,  Raghuvendra  Singh,  who  claimed  to  be  the  owner  of  the  property in question and offered to sell the same.  On 24-3-2008, as alleged, both the husband and  wife agreed to sell the residential plot bearing No.  131,  Block  Cassia  Fistula  Estate,  Sector  Chi-4,  Greater  Noida,  U.P.  for  a  consideration  of  Rs  2,43,97,880 and an agreement to that effect was  executed by Respondent 3, both the husband and  wife jointly received a sum of Rs 1,05,00,000 from  the  appellant  towards  part-payment  of  the  sale  consideration.  It  was  further  agreed  that  Respondents  2  and  3  would  obtain  permission  from the Greater Noida Authority to transfer the  property  in  his  favour  and  execute  the  deed  of  transfer  within  45  days  from  the  grant  of  such  permission.

3. As the factual antecedents would further reveal,  the said agreement was executed on the basis of a  registered  agreement  executed  in  favour  of  Respondent  3  by  the  original  allottee,  Smt  

1 (2013) 2 SCC 801

Page 7

Page 7 of 10

Vandana  Bhardwaj  to  sell  the  said  plot.  After  expiry of  a  month or  so,  the appellant  enquired  from Respondent 3 about the progress of delivery  of  possession from the original  allottee,  but he   received  conflicting  and  contradictory  replies  which created doubt in his mind and impelled him  to rush to Noida and find out the real facts from  the Greater Noida Authority.  On due enquiry,  he  came  to  know  that  there  was  a  registered  agreement  in  favour  of  the  third  respondent  by  Smt Vandana Bhardwaj; that a power of attorney  had  been  executed  by  the  original  allottee  in  favour of Respondent 2, the wife of Respondent 3;  that  the  original  allottee,  to  avoid  any  kind  of  litigation,  had  also  executed  a  will  in  favour  of  Respondent 3; and that Respondent 2 by virtue of  the power of attorney, executed in her favour by  the  original  allottee,  had  transferred  the  said  property in favour of one Monika Goel who had got  her  name mutated in  the  record  of  the  Greater  Noida  Authority.  Coming  to  know  about  the  aforesaid  factual  score,  he  demanded  refund  of  the  money  from  the  respondents,  but  a  total  indifferent  attitude  was  exhibited,  which  compelled him to lodge an FIR at  Police Station  Kasna, which gave rise to Criminal Case No. 563 of  2009.

xxx xxx xxx

33. Applying the aforesaid parameters we have no  hesitation in coming to hold that neither the FIR  nor the protest petition was mala fide, frivolous or  vexatious. It is also not a case where there is no  substance in the complaint. The manner in which  the investigation was conducted by the officer who  eventually filed the final report and the transfer of  the investigation earlier to another officer who had  almost completed the investigation and the entire

Page 8

Page 8 of 10

case diary which has been adverted to in detail in  the protest petition prima facie makes out a case  against  the  husband  and  the  wife  regarding  collusion and the intention to cheat from the very  beginning, inducing the appellant to hand over a  huge sum of money to both of them. Their conduct  of not stating so many aspects, namely, the power  of  attorney  executed by  the  original  owner,  the  will and also the sale effected by the wife in the  name  of  Monika  Singh  on  28-7-2008  cannot  be  brushed aside at this stage.”

10. No doubt,  where  the  criminal  complaints  are  filed  in  

respect of property disputes of civil in nature only to harass  

the  accused,  and  to  pressurize  him  in  the  civil  litigation  

pending, and there is prima facie abuse of process of law, it  

is well within the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise its  

powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal  

proceedings.   However,  the powers  under  the  section are  

required  to  be  exercised  sparingly.   In  Kamaladevi  

Agarwal  v. State  of  W.B.  and others2,  this  Court  has  

observed as under: -

“This  Court  has  consistently  held  that  the  revisional  or  inherent  powers  of  quashing  the  proceedings  at  the  initial  stage  should  be  exercised sparingly and only where the allegations  made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken at  

2 (2002) 1 SCC 555

Page 9

Page 9 of 10

their face value and accepted in entirety, do not  prima facie disclose the commission of an offence.  Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made  the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction.”

11. Having considered the law laid down by this Court, as  

above, and further considering the facts and circumstances  

of the case and seriousness of the allegations made against  

the  accused,  particularly  that  one  of  the  persons  said  to  

have  executed  the  power  of  attorney  was  minor,  and  

another was away from India, in our opinion, even if the civil  

suit  was  instituted  by  the  complainant,  the  High  Court  

committed no error of law in declining to interfere with the  

criminal  proceedings initiated against  the appellant  in  the  

present case.

12. Therefore,  we  are  not  inclined  to  interfere  with  the  

order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition under  

Section  482  of  the  Code.   Accordingly  the  appeal  is  

dismissed.  However, we clarify that the observations made  

in  our  order  would  not  be  read  to  influence  the  civil  or  

criminal proceedings pending between the parties.

Page 10

Page 10 of 10

………………….....…………J.                          [Dipak Misra]

     .………………….……………J. New Delhi;              [Prafulla C. Pant]

April 13, 2015.