Page 1

1

  REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1168    OF 2014 [ Arising out of  SLP (Crl.) No.5529 OF 2011]

Mosiruddin Munshi       …      Appellant(s)  

versus

Md. Siraj and another                 …     Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

C. NAGAPPAN, J.  

1. Leave granted.   CRMP No.12896 of  2011 seeking  

impleadment as a party is dismissed.  

2. This appeal is preferred against order dated June 29,  

2010, passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRR No.1978  

of  2006  in  FIR  No.251  dated  10.11.2005  on  the  file  of  

Amherst  Street  Police  Station  registered  for  the  alleged

Page 2

2

offences under Section 420/120B IPC including the order  

dated 28.10.2005 in case No.C/949 of 2005 passed by the  

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

3. Briefly  the  facts  are  as  follows  :   The  appellant  

herein/  complainant  was  looking  for  a  plot  of  land  for  

construction  of  residential  house  in  January  2005  and  

accused No.2, Masud Alam, a public servant represented  

that he could arrange for the said plot and introduced the  

appellant to respondent No.1/accused No.1 who stated that  

he  had  a  plot  of  land  and  the  appellant  believing  the  

representation made by the accused  No.2 entered into an  

agreement  for  sale with respondent No.1 herein/accused  

No.1 and also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,001/- in   cash.  The  

respondent No.1 herein refused to hand over the necessary  

title documents to the appellant which led to issuance of  

legal notice by the appellant.  All other methods to compel  

respondent  No.1  to  complete  the  sale  having  failed  the  

appellant    filed a complaint  on 28.10.2005 in the Court of

Page 3

3

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against  

respondent No.1 herein/accused No.1 and accused No.2 for  

the  offences  punishable  under  Section  420,  read  with  

Section 120B of the IPC. The Additional Chief Metropolitan  

Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the officer in-charge  

of  the   Amherst  Street   Police  Station  for   causing  

investigation under Section 156(3)  of  Criminal  Procedure  

Code by treating the complaint as First Information Report.  

Respondent  No.1  herein/accused  No.1  filed  application  

under  Section  482  of  Cr.PC  for  quashing  the  said  

proceedings  including  the  FIR.   Though  the  appellant  

herein/complainant was impleaded as a party no attempt  

was made to serve notice on him  with the result that the  

learned  single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  quashed  the  

complaint  proceedings  in  the  absence  of  the  appellant  

herein.   Challenging  the  said  order  the  appellant  herein  

preferred appeal to this Court in Criminal Appeal No.852 of  

2008  and  this  Court  by  judgment  dated  May  09,  2008  

allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the High Court

Page 4

4

for a fresh decision in accordance with law.  Thereafter the  

High Court heard both the parties and by impugned order  

dated  June,  29,  2010  allowed  the   application  under  

Section 482 Cr.P.C and quashed the complaint proceedings.  

Aggrieved by the same the complainant has preferred the  

present appeal.

4. The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  contended  

that  the  contents  of  the  complaint   would  disclose  the  

commission  of  the  cognizable  offences  alleged  and  the  

High Court at the preliminary stage would not be justified  

in  embarking  upon  an  inquiry  and  quashing  the  

proceedings and hence the impugned order is liable to be  

set  aside.   Per  contra  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

Respondent No.1/accused No.1 contended that the dispute  

involved in the complaint is of civil nature and none of the  

acts allegedly committed by the Respondent No.1 gave rise  

to any criminal liability as rightly held by the High Court.  In  

support  of  the  submission  he  relied  on  the  following

Page 5

5

decisions of this Court in  Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma  

and others Vs.  State of Bihar and another (2000) 4 SCC  

168, Murari Lal Gupta Vs. Gopi Singh (2005) 13 SCC 699  

and   Ram  Biraji  Devi  and  another Vs.  Umesh  Kumar  

Singh and another (2006) 6 SCC 669.

5. The  legal  position  with  regard  to  exercise  of  

jurisdiction  by  the  High  Court  for  quashing  the  First  

Information Report is now well settled.  It is not necessary  

for us to delve deep thereinto as the propositions of law  

have been stated by this Court in R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C.  

Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516  in the following terms :

“15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said  decisions are :

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not  exercise  its  inherent  jurisdiction  to  quash a criminal  proceeding and,  in  particular,  a  first  information  report  unless  the  allegations  contained  therein, even if given face value and  taken to be correct in their entirety,  disclosed no cognizable offence.

Page 6

6

(2) For  the  said  purpose  the  Court,  save and except in very exceptional  circumstances, would not look to any  document  relied  upon  by  the  defence.

(3)  Such a power should be exercised  very  sparingly.  If  the  allegations  made in the FIR disclose commission  of an offence, the Court shall not go  beyond the same and pass an order  in  favour  of  the   accused  to  hold  absence  of  any  mens  rea  or  actus  reus.

(4) If  the  allegation  discloses  a  civil  dispute,  the same by itself  may not  be a ground to hold that the criminal  proceedings should not be allowed to  continue.

6. Yet again in  Mahesh Chaudhary Vs.  State of  

Rajasthan (2009) 4 SCC 443) this Court stated the law  

thus :  

“11. The  principle  providing  for  exercise  of  the  power  by  a  High  Court

Page 7

7

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding  is well known. The Court shall ordinarily  exercise the said jurisdiction, inter alia, in  the event the allegations contained in the  FIR or the complaint petition even if  on  face value are taken to be correct in their  entirety, does not disclose commission of  an offence.”

7. In  the  present  case  the  complaint  does  make  

averments  so  as  to  infer  fraudulent  or  dishonest  

inducement  having  been  made  by  Respondent  No.1  

herein and accused No.2 pursuant to which the appellant  

parted with money.  It is the case of the appellant that  

Respondent No.2 does not have title over the property  

since the settlement deed was not a registered one and  

Respondent No.1 herein and accused No.2 had  entered  

into criminal  conspiracy and they fraudulently induced  

the appellant to deliver a sum of Rs.5,00,001/- with no  

intention to complete the sale deal.  The averments in  

the complaint  would prima facie  make out  a  case for  

investigation by the authority.

Page 8

8

8. In the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for  

the respondent No.1, cited supra, this Court on the  facts  

therein held that the allegations in the complaint read as  

a  whole  prima  facie  did  not  disclose  commission  of  

offences  alleged and quashed the criminal proceedings.  

Those decisions do not  apply to  the fact situation of the  

present case.

9. The  High  Court  has  adopted  a  strictly  

hypertechnical approach and  such an endeavour may  

be justified during a  trial, but certainly not during the  

stage of investigation.  At any rate it is too premature a  

stage  for  the  High  Court  to  step  in  and  stall  the  

investigation  by  declaring  that  it  is  a  civil  transaction  

wherein no semblance of criminal offence is involved.

10. The appellant, is therefore right in contending that  

the  First  Information  Report  should  not  have  been

Page 9

9

quashed in this case and the investigation should have  

been allowed to proceed.

11. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the  impugned order.

…………………………….J. (T.S. Thakur)

……………………………J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi; May  9, 2014