Uttam Singh v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.206 of 2013 (6) dt.25-07-2013 2 No.25 at the rate of Rs. 2,45,000/- per Katha in favour of Uttam Singh petitioner, Dilip Kumar Uraon, Anil Mehta and Gautam Dutta. As per the terms of agreement Rs.1,75,000/- cash and Rs.50,000/- through cheque was given as an advance to the father and uncle of the informant and thereafter no money was given to them. It has further been alleged all four persons exerted pressure and forcefully got the land registered in favour of one Ranveer Kumar and Renuka Devi of 9 Katha of land as per agreement Rs.22,25,000/- was to be paid. It has further been alleged after being out from Registry Office petitioner asked them (father and uncle of the informant) to go along with him at his residence where rest amount of money would be paid, on this assurance, they went there where all four persons exerted pressure to execute rest of 6 Kathas of land they would pay all the money at a time. As father and uncle have no other alternative they executed sale deed of 1 Katha of land in favour of Ranveer Kumar. When demand of money was made for payment they further exerted pressure to execute the sale deed of rest 5 Kathas of land only then, money would be paid to them but money has not paid even after the said commitment. Further said, by creating forged Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.206 of 2013 (6) dt.25-07-2013 3 and fabricated partition deed the name of Ranveer Kumar and Renuka Devi was mutated in Register II of the State Government. At the end it has been claimed that by applying novel method they have got the land registered but substantial amount which the informant father and uncle were entitled, not paid to them. In this way accused person cheated, defrauded and misappropriated the money. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is out and out a civil dispute has given wrong colour of criminal offence the court below wrongly treated the case of criminal nature, has wrongly taken cognizance. He further submits that lands were not executed in his favour rather only he is witness of the sale deed and no agreement paper is lying with the petitioner which can implicate him in the present case. He further submits that if the money was not paid to the informant or other family members they should have filed the civil suit for realization of money. It has further been submitted that lands were executed not by the informant but by the other family members and present case has been filed after two years of registration of the sale deed. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.206 of 2013 (6) dt.25-07-2013 4 Supreme Court in the case of Md. Inbrahim and other Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2009(4) P.L.J.R.99 SC and judgment delivered by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 21105 of 2011 which is Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that on reading of the complaint petition it constitute a criminal offence as the petitioner cheated the father and uncle of the informant got the land register in three installment, save and except, paying Rs.2,25,000/- did not pay the rest amount and always gave assurance to his father and uncle for payment of rest amount so much so that they applied method of black mailing and got the land registered. Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it is to be decided as to whether allegations made in the complaint petition primarily and essentially a civil dispute or it constitute criminal offence also. On reading of the complaint petition it appears that it is the petitioner who was behind scene, played a vital role as petitioner approached the father and uncle, settle the issue of sale, got the sale deed of land executed, brought them to his house, black mailed there and got the land registered again Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.206 of 2013 (6) dt.25-07-2013 5 without payment of money. Averments show, the petitioner and his associates befooled father and uncle of informant, cunning got the land registered and had shown big thumb to them. It is well settled principle of law that if from the narration of fact a criminal case and civil case is made out, there is no bar for a parallel proceeding. The issue came for consideration before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, reported in 2006(6) SCC 736 and it has been held as follows: relating “12. The principles to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few - Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [1988 (1) SCC 692], State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [1995 (6) SCC 194], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., [1996 (5) SCC 591], State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla [1996 (8) SCC 164], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, [1999 (3) SCC 259], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [2000 (3) SCC 269], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [2000 (4) SCC 168], M. Krishnan vs Vijay Kumar [2001 (8) SCC 645], and Zandu Phamaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [2005 (1) SCC 122]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are : (i)A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.206 of 2013 (6) dt.25-07-2013 6 For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the in the reliability or genuineness of the allegations complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii)A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii)The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. to have been is not required to verbatim (iv)The complaint reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v)A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.206 of 2013 (6) dt.25-07-2013 7 should be deprecated interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State of UP [2000 (2) SCC 636], this Court observed : "It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." The judgment reported in the case of Md. Inbrahim (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case as in that case two members of the same family were at logger head, case was filed, the land which was not in his share was sold. In that context the court found the dispute raised there in was primarily a civil dispute and quashed the proceeding. Here the position is quite different as petitioner, as middle man, cheated and defrauded, father and uncle of informant got the land registered. The aforesaid judgment of Hon‟bel Supreme Court rests on different plank, explained the situation where dispute is in between vendor and vendee in paragraph 15 of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.206 of 2013 (6) dt.25-07-2013 8 the judgment held as follows: thereby defrauds “15. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. The term „fraud‟ is not defined in the Code. The dictionary definition of „fraud‟ is “deliberate deception, treachery or cheating intended to gain advantage”. Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines „fraud‟ with reference to a party to a contract. In Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572, this Court explained the meaning of the expression „defraud‟ thus:- “The expression “defraud” elements, namely, deceit and injury to the persons deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied.” involves In view of the facts in the present case and law decided by Hon‟ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that prima-facie offence is made out against the petitioner and it is Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.206 of 2013 (6) dt.25-07-2013 9 not such a case where the Court should exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly this application is dismissed. However, any observation given will have no bearing on the merit of case. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)