GANGA DHAR KALITAversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

                    (2015) 4 S.C.R. 373


                  GANGA DHAR KALITA                           A
                             v.
          THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

             (Criminal Appeal No.592 of 2015)                 B
                     APRIL 13, 2015

     [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Power c
under, exercise of - Criminal complaint against appellant
alleging that he fraudulently executed power of attorney by
forging signatures of three persons - Civil suit also instituted
by the parties - Petition seeking quashing of criminal
proceedings on the ground that the dispute between the D
parties is civil in nature, rejected by the High Court - On
appeal, held: In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, the seriousness of the a/legations made against the
accused that one of the persons said to have executed the
power of attorney was minor; and another was away from India, E
even if the civil suit was instituted by the complainant, the
High Court was justified in declining to interfere with the
criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court                          F

    HELD: Having considered the law laid down by this
Court that if the allegations in the FIR are not frivolous,
malafilde or vexatious, it cannot be simply quashed for
the reason that civil suit is also pending in the matter; G
and 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

                            373                               H
374         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A complaint or the FIR, even if taken at their face value and
  accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the
  commission of an offence; and further considering the
  facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of
  the allegations made against the accused, particularly
B that one of the persons said to have executed the power
  of attorney was minor, and another was away from India,
  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
C the appellant. [Para 9, 10, 11] [377-D; 379-H; 380-A-D]

          Arun Bhandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2013
      (3) SCR 961: (2013) 2 SCC 801; Kamaladevi Agarwal v.
      State of WB. and others 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 284: (2002) 1
D     SCC 555 - referred to.

                        Case Law Reference

         2013 (3) SCR 961             referred to.     Para 9
E        2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 284      referred to.     Para 10

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
      Appeal No. 592 of 2015.

F        From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2014 of the
      Gauhati High Court in Criminal Petition No. 287 of 2009.

         M. L. Lahoty, Paban K. Sharma, Gargi B. Bharali,
      Himanshu Shekhar for the Appellant.
G         Navnit Kumar, Corporate Law Group, Abir Phukan, V.
      ·Shyamohan, Shreyas Mehrotra, Apoorv Damodaran for the
       Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
  GANGA DHAR KALITA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND                 375
                      ORS.

      PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed A
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 B
initiated against the appellant.

    2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the papers on record.
                                                                 c
     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}, D
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 E
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 F
power of attorney Deed No. 2062 dated 11.4.2006 by forging
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 G
appears to have registered the case as crime No. 25 of 2009
in respect of offences punishable under Sections 419, 468,
420, 4 71 /34 of Indian Penal Code.

    4. The present appellant challenged the First Information. H
376          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A     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
 B    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
C     not impressed with the arguments adv.anced on behalf of the
      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
D     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,
 E    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
F 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 annexureA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
  respondent Nos. 3 and 4, shows that Title Suit No. 477 of2008
  was dismissed for non-prosecution. There is nothing on the
G record to suggest that after dismissal of the 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 of2009 filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and
H Kaustav K. Kalita, it is true that they have sought cancellation
  GANGADHAR KALITAv. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND                    377
         ORS. [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

of general power of attorney Deed No. 2062 of 2006 dated         A
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 B
(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 C
the power of attorney, was away from India on the date of
alleged execution of the Deed.

     9. In Arun Bhandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others 1, this Court has held that ifthe allegations in the First D
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: -
                                                                  E
      "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 Naida, he came in
      contact with Respondent 2 and her husband,
      Raghuvendra Singh, who claimed to bethe owner of the F
      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 Naida, U.P. for a
      consideration of Rs 2,43,97,880 and an agreement to G
      that effect was executed by Respondent 3, both the
      husband and wife Jointly received a sum of Rs


1 (2013) 2 sec ao1                                               H
378   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015) 4 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
c     3 by the original allottee, Smt 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
D     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
E     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
F
      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
G     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.
H
  GANGA DHAR KALITA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND                     379
          ORS. [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

                 xxx                 xxx                    xxx    A

       33. Applying the aforesaid parameters we have no
       hesitation in coming to hold that neitherthe FIR nor the
      protest petition was mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. It is
      also not a case where there is no substance in the B
      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 case diary which has been C
      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 D
      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."
                                                                    E
     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 F
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings. However, the powers under the section are
required to be exercised sparingly. In Kama/adevi Agarwal
v. State of W.B. and others2 , this Court has observed as under:
                                                                    G

    "This Court has consistently held that the revisional or
    inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial

2 (2002) 1   sec 555                                               H
380         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A         stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the
          allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even iftaken
          at 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
B         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
C 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
D 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.
E 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.

      NidhiJain                                    Appeal dismissed.