1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2113 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 10733 OF 2015] PRABHU DUTT TIWARI                            Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.              Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The  appellant  is  aggrieved  since  an  order summoning  the  respondents  was  quashed  by  the  High Court as per the impugned order.  The summoning order issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court-19, Deoria reads as follows :-

“Complainant appeared along with the Counsel on being called.  Arguments heard and record perused.

Complainant  has  stated  that  he  is working  in  telecommunication  department Varanasi and that they are three brothers and their father distributed the village land among them and all of them cultivate their land.  The accused number-3 Pushpa Devi  filed  a  case  against  accused number-5  Mahima,  in  collusion  with  the accused  number  1,  2  and  4  and  he  was taken  to  their  village  Nautan  Bihar  by threatening him where he was tortured in many  different  ways  and  they  got  the registered  deed  for  the  land  khasra

2

number 377 and 1191 forcibly.  The mental condition  of  accused  number-5  is  not stable  and  he  remains  disturbed  and taking advantage of the same and all the accused by colluding themselves, in order to cause damage to him and his brother Manoj  got  a  false  and  fabricated registered  deed  made  on  3.10.2012  by producing false papers.  Police station was  informed  and  since  no  action  was taken by them, this case has been filed in this court.   

In  support  of  the  statement,  the testimony of the self and the two other witnesses has been recorded under section 202  Cr.  P.  C.  and  a  photocopy  of  the application  submitted  to  the Superintendent  of  Police  has  been produced as documentary evidence.   

On perusal of the documents available on  record  a  case  appears  to  be  prima facie  made  out  against  the  accused Narendra Mishra, Awadhesh Mishra, Pushpa Devi  Ashutosh  Tiwari  and  Mahima  Tiwari under  sections  419,  420,  468,  471  and 120B  IPC.   The  matter  is  fit  for summoning the accused for trial.   

ORDER      The accused Narendra Mishra, Awadhesh

Mishra, Pushpa Devi, Ashutosh Tiwari and Mahima Tiwari are hereby summoned under sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The Complainant to comply within a week. List  for  attendance  as  above  on 20.12.2012.”

3

3.  The respondents challenged the order, extracted above, in a criminal writ petition before the High Court.  The consideration of the High Court reads as follows :-

“I  have  given  my  anxious  judicial thoughts  over  the  entire  facts  and circumstances  of  the  case.  Considering the  fact  that  the  bhumidhari  right  of Mahima Tiwari has never been challenged in  the  criminal  complaint  or  in  the evidence  led  in  support  of  the allegations made therein and there is no allegation or evidence on record that the sale property was ancestral property or the complainant had any right by birth therein, Mahima Tiwari (accused no.5) was fully entitled to transfer his land in favour  of  Pushpa  Devi  and  if  he  has executed the sale deed in question in her favour, neither he nor Pushpa Devi nor any other person can be held liable for criminal  offence  punishable  under Sections  419,  420,  468,  471,  120-B  of I.P.C.  The  court  of  learned  Magistrate and  learned  revisional  court  are  not supposed  to  shut  their  eyes  to  the transferable right of a Bhumidhar. They are not bound in all the circumstances to take  it  for  granted  that  if  the  oral evidence  under  Sections  200  and  202 Cr.P.C. has been led in support of the allegations  made  in  the  criminal complaint, their hands are fettered upto

4

the  extent  that  except  issuing  the process  under  Section  204  Cr.P.C.  they would not pass any other order including the order of dismissal of the criminal complaint, if at all it appears to the Magistrate  that  accused  have  not committed any criminal offence. If there is any grievance to the complainant he is well  within  his  right  to  agitate  the matter before the civil court in a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The criminal jurisdiction of the court cannot be invoked to settle the dispute purely of civil nature.”

 4. At  the  stage  of  summoning  the  accused  on  the basis of a private complaint, all that is required is a  satisfaction  by  the  Magistrate  that  there  is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the  light  of  the  records  made  available  and  the evidence adduced by the complainant.

5. Having  gone  through  the  order  passed  by  the Magistrate, it is fairly clear that there has been the  required  satisfaction.   The  discussion  by  the High  Court  would  give  an  indication  that  the Magistrate had to appreciate the evidence and then enter a finding as to whether the accused are guilty or not.  At the stage of summoning, as already stated above, the satisfaction required for the Magistrate

5

is only to see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.

6. Such  a  satisfaction  for  summoning  an  accused having been made out, the High Court went wrong in interfering  with the  summoning order.   It  was too early  for  the  High  Court  to  enter  a  finding otherwise.  The impugned order is, hence, set aside. The appeal is allowed.

7. The party-respondents may appear before the trial court within a period of one month from today.  On their appearance before the trial court, they shall be  released  on  bail  on  furnishing  sufficient surety/sureties  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  trial court.  We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it is open to the parties to take all available steps at the appropriate stage.

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ AMITAVA ROY ]  

New Delhi; December 07, 2017.

6

ITEM NO.11               COURT NO.5               SECTION II                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)  No(s).  10733/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  12-12-2014 in CRLMW No. 5935/2014 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad) PRABHU DUTT TIWARI                                 Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.                  Respondent(s) (FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.  ON IA 21786/2015) Date : 07-12-2017 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, AOR

Mr. M. P. Singh, Adv.  Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.  

                   For Respondent(s) Mr. Anupam Mishra, AOR

Mr. V. J. Francis, Adv.  Mr. Harikumar V., Adv.  Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv.  

                        UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Leave granted.  The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable

Judgment.   Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                              (RENU DIWAN)    COURT MASTER                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)