Supreme Court of India
HIRA LAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 461
- Decided
- 8 April 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The second complaint petition was not maintainable as it did not disclose any fresh facts or exceptional circumstances, rendering the summons illegal and the High Court’s refusal to quash them erroneous.
Summary
The appellants and respondent No.3 were co‑sharers of land and disputed the validity of a registered will. A civil court had found the will genuine, but respondent No.3 filed a criminal complaint alleging forgery under IPC sections 420, 462, 467, 468 and 471, which the magistrate dismissed. He later filed a second complaint under CrPC s.156(3) repeating the same allegations; the magistrate issued summons. The appellants moved the High Court under CrPC s.482 to quash the summons, but the High Court rejected the application. The Supreme Court held that the second complaint was not maintainable because it disclosed no fresh facts or exceptional circumstances, making the summons illegal and the High Court’s order erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court’s order set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether a second complaint petition under CrPC s.156(3) is maintainable when the earlier complaint on the same facts has been dismissed and no fresh facts are presented.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under CrPC s.482 to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence and the dispute is essentially civil.
- Whether a civil dispute over the authenticity of a will can be entertained as a criminal offence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 156(3), s. 204, s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 420, s. 462, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471
Subjects
forged willcivil disputecriminal jurisdictionSection 482 CrPCsecond complaintmaintainabilityproperty disputeIndian Penal Code
Judgment
(2009] 5 S.C.R. 567
HIRA LAL & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 662 of 2009)
APRIL 8, 2009
"" B
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482- Jurisdiction
under - Parameters of interference with criminal proceeding
by High Court - Discussed - On facts, there were allegations c
of execution of forged Will - Complaint petition in this regard
was dismissed by a reasoned order - Second complaint
petition reiterating same a/legations as made in first complaint
petition - Maintainability of - Held: Not maintainable -
~'
Dispute was essentially civil in nature and criminal court could D
not determine the same - In any event, the second complaint
petition did not disclose any exceptional case and no fresh
fact was brought to notice of the court - Hence, summons
issued by Magistrate on the second complaint petition was
wholly illegal and without jurisdiction - High Court erred in E
rejecting the application filed by accused uls.482 CrPC -
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 462, 467, 468 and 471 - Will.
Appellants and respondent no.3 are co-sharers in
• certain property. Dispute arose between them with
regard to validity of a registered Will. Prima facie, a Civil F
Court found the said Will to be genuine. A complaint
petition filed by respondent no.3 ulss. 420, 462, 467, 468
'i
..
~- and 471 IPC on the premise that the said Will was forged
and fabricated was dismissed by the Magistrate. Revision
application filed thereaginst was also dismissed. G
y Subsequently respondent no.3 filed application uls.156(3)
CrPC making similar allegations of forged Will,
whereupon the Magistrate issued summons against the
appellants. Appellants filed application urs. 482, CrPC.
567 H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A The High Court declined to go into the merits of the matter
and dismissed the application. Hence the present appeal. ,
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The parameters of interference with a .i
)<
B criminal proceeding by the High Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code are well
known. One of the grounds on which such interference
is permissible is that the allegations contained in the
complaint petition even if given face value and taken to
c be correct in their entirety, commission of an offence is
not disclosed. The High Court may also interfere where
the action on the part of the complainant is ma/a fide.
[Para 1OJ [573-B-D]
State of Haryana & Ors. v.. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) ...
D
Supp 1 SCC 335; Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr.
(1985) 2 SGC 370 and R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta & Ors.
(2009) 1 sec 516, referred to. "
2. In the present case, the dispute between the
E parties is essentially civil in nature. Whether the Will in
question is surrounded by suspicious circumstances or
not is a matter which may appropriately fall for
determination in a testamentary proceeding. The question
as to whether the transactions are genuine or not would
F fall for consideration before the Civil Court. What was the
-.
share of the respective co-sharers is a question which is
purely a civil dispute; a criminal court cannot determine
the same. [Paras 11 and 13) [573-D-E; 575-B-C]
3. The order passed by the Magistrate in the first
G
complaint petition is not cryptic. Reasons have been
assigned in support thereof. In a situation of this nature, ¥·
a second complaint petition could not have been filed.
The second .complaint petition filed by respondent no.3
H
HIRA LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 569
·t
does not disclose any such exceptional case. It reiterated A
the same allegations as were made in the first complaint
petition. No fresh fact was brought to the notice of the
court. The core contention raised in both the complaint
petitions was alleged execution of a forged Will. It was not
a fit case where cognizance of the offence could have B
been taken or any summons could have been issued.
[Paras 14, 15 and 16) [575-C-D; 576-C-E]
Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy & Anr. (2003) 1
sec 734, referred to. c
Case Law Reference:
(1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 referred to Para 11
(1985) 2 SGC 370 referred to Para 11
><· D
(2009) 1 sec 516 referred to Para 11
(2003) 1 sec 734 referred to Para 14
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 662 of 2009. E
From the Judgment & Order dated 08.07.2008 of the
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. application
No. 16857 of 2008.
Vineet Dhanda, J.P. Dhanda and Raj Rani Dhanda for the F
Appellants.
Pramod Swarup, Savitri Pandey, Rajeev Dubey,
Kamlendra Mishra and Vishwajit Singh for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G
-Y S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants and the respondent No.3 (complainant) are
co-sharers. Raghuvansh Tyagi, father of respondent No.3, and
H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S. C.R.
A Tika Ram Tyagi, father of Smt. Suman Devi were co-khatedars
in respect of Khasra No.59 having an area of 2.0920 hectares
'I'"- -
I>
of land situated in village Bhangel Begampur, PS Phase II,
Noida.
B Father of Respondent No.3 and Suman Devi were having
3/16th share in the aforementioned khasra. According to the
complainant, prior to 1997 a mutual agreement was entered
into amongst the co-sharers, pursuant whereto, 2000 sq. yds.
of lands was allotted for the purpose of residential house to
each of the co-sharer. The complainant on his allotted land,
c allegedly constructed a house and started living there. He also
said to have constructed 10 shops. Tika Ram Tyagi is said to
have constructed two houses on 600 sq. yards of land and his
sons also constructed pucca houses on the remaining 1400 sq.
yds. of land in November 2006.
D
3. Tika Ram Tyagi executed a registered deed of sill on
or about 24.2.1997 bequeathing all his moveable and
immoveable properties in favour of his grand sons.
Husband of Smt. Suman Devi, Anil Kumar is said to have
E
signed the said Will as one of the attesting witnesses.
On or about 1.8.2002, however, another Will was executed
by Tika Ram Tyagi who had been suffering from throat cancer
in respect of the same property in favour of Smt. Suman Devi.
F Appellant No.1 Hira Lal was a witness to the said Will. ~
'It is stated that Suman Devi later on executed a 'Bainama'
in favour of Ashok Kumar Tyagi, younger brother of appellant
No.1 on the basis of the said Will. It stands admitted that in
G terms thereof Suman Devi got her name mutated in the Land
Revenue Record on or about 26.9.2002. She, allegedly, sold
nine shops in favour of Ashok Kumar Tyagi by reason of a
't'
'Bainama' dated 22.10.2002. Yet again she sold another shop
on 23.10.2002 by reason of another 'Bainama' in favour of
H
HIRA LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 571
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
+·
Ashok Kumar Tyagi. A
4. A civil suit was filed by the respondent in the court of
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gautam Budh Nagar, inter alia,
praying for cancellation of the said Will on the premise that the
said Will was a forged one. The said suit was dismissed by
B
"' an order dated 29.3.2006. An appeal thereagainst is said to
be pending.
Prior thereto, Respondent No.3 filed a complaint petition
in the Court of ACJM, Gautam Budh Nagar which was marked
as Complaint Case No.212 of 2003 under Section 420, 462, c
467, 468 and 471 IPC, inter alia, contending that the Will dated
1.8.2006 purported to have been executed by Tika Ram Tyagi
in favour of his daughter Suman Devi was a forged and
fabricated document. The learned ACJM, Gautam Budh Nagar,
however, dismissed the said complaint petition, stating : D
"Case called. Complainant is not present. No record has
been submitted in compliance of the earlier order. File be
put up at 3 pm for order.
Photocopy of the Khatauni has been submitted by the E
complainant in which the names of Mukesh and other co-
shareholders are mentioned in Khata Khatauni No.22,
Khet No.59. Only becoming a co-shareholder of the land
does not prove a sale deed or Will as fake or sham
~ document. Since Tika Ram's name is also one of the co- F
shareholders and the alleged sale deed and Will has not
been declared to be fake or bogus by any other court,
therefore, in the light of the record available in case file and
oral evidence, no prima facie case is made out against
the accused persons. G
~·
The complaint under Section 203 is hereby rejected."
5. We may place on record that the learned ACJM by an
order dated 13.2.2003, inter alia, opined that 'no record was
available in the file which could prove that the said Deed of Will H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A are prima facie fake and bogus'. A revision application was
filed thereagainst by respondent No.3 which was dismissed by
an order dated 8.4.2004.
6. Respondent No.3 thereafter filed another application
under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
B
(Code) making similar allegations. However, in the said
complaint petition even the execution of the bienamas was
alleged to be fraudulent acts on the part of the accused
respondent, contending :
c "That the opponent Suman did not have any right to
dispose of the plot with Khasra No.59 and no share of the
plot of Khasra No.59 came to the share of Suman.
That opponent Suman played fraud first did Karam Chand
D and Dayanand and without the permission of Tika Ram got
the Will of Tika Ram in her favour with regard to the property
in Khasra No.59."
"'
Learned First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by an
order dated 8.7.2008 issued summons which reads as under
E
"Because your presence is required to make the reply of
the charge under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC,
therefore, you are directed to appear either in person or
F through advocate before the concerned court on 8.7.08. -i-
Fail not to do so."
7. Appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the
Code which by reason of the impugned judgment has been -----
dismissed. The High Court in its impugned judgment refused
G to go into the merit of the matter that the defence of the accused
cannot be considered at that stage and they can raise all
contentions at the time of framing of the charges.
-
8. Mr. J.P. Dhandha, learned counsel appearing on behalf
H of the appellant, would contend that the High Court committed
HIRA LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 573
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
+
a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that A
the second complaint petition being not maintainable, the
summons issued by the court of ACJM was wholly illegal and
without jurisdiction.
9. Mr. Pramod Swarup, learned counsel appearing on B
behalf of the State, and Mr. Vishwajit Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 would, however,
support the impugned judgment.
10. The parameters of interference with a criminal
proceeding by the High Court in exercise of ~s jurisdiction under c
Section 482 of the Code are well known. One of the grounds
on which such interference is permissible is that the allegations
contained in the complaint petition even if given face value and
taken to be correct in their entirety, commission of an offence
is not disclosed. The High Court may also interfere where the D
action on the part of the complainant is ma/a fide.
11. The dispute between the parties is essentially civil in
nature. The Will in question is a registered Will. Whether it is
surrounded by suspicious circumstances or not is a matter E
which may appropriately fall for determination in a testamentary
proceeding. Prima facie, a Civil Court has found the said Will
to be genuine. A complaint petition filed by the third respondent
has been rejected. A revision application filed thereaginst has
also been dismissed.
+ F
In State of Haryana & Ors. v.. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992
Supp (1) SCC 335), this Court, relying on Pratibha Rani v. Suraj
Kumar and Anr. [(1985) 2 SGC 370), stated that for the
purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure to quash a FIR or a complaint, the High G
Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the
.--:, allegations made in the complaint or the documents
accompanying the same.
In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta & Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A 516], this Court stated the propositions of law, thus:
"(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
8 contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be
correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
(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.
c
(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
D accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus
re us.
(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
E continue."
It was furthermore observed :
"10. It is furthermore well known that no hard and fast rule
F can be laid down. Each case has to be considered on its
own merits. The Court, while exercising its inherent
jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine
complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which
the provisions of Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure had been introduced by the Parliament
G
but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in
appropriate cases. One of the paramount duties of the
Superior Courts is to see that a person who is apparently
innocent is not subjected to persecution and humiliation on
the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint."
H
HIRA LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 575
..,,_ [S.B. SINHA, J.]
12. Mr. Singh would argue that Tika Ram Tyagi having A
executed the Will in respect of his own share, the appellants
could not have transferred the shops in favour of third party
relying on or on the basis thereof.
13. The question as to whether the transactions are
A_ B
genuine or not would fall for consideration before the Civil Court
as indisputably the respondent No.3 has filed a civil suit in the
court of Civil Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar wherein allegedly an
interim injunction has been granted. What was the share of the
respective co-sharers is a question which is purely a civil
dispute; a criminal court cannot determine the same. c
14. The order of learned ACJM in his order dated 2.4.2003
is not a cryptic one. Reasons have been assigned in support
thereof. In a situation of this nature, in our opinion, a second
> complaint petition could not have been filed. D
Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Singh on a
decision of this Court in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan
Reddy & Anr. [(2003) 1 SCC 734], wherein it was opined that
second complaint was not completely barred in law. This Court, ·
E
however, in that decision itself held that the second complaint
can lie only on fresh facts and/or if a special case is made out
therefor, stating :
"19. Keeping in view the settled legal principles, we are
-~ of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in holding F
.
that the second complaint was completely barred. It is
settled law that there is no statutory bar in filing a second
complaint on the same facts. In a case where a previous
complaint is dismissed without assigning any reasons, the
Magistrate under Section 204 Cr.P.C. may take G
cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is
.....1 sufficient ground for proceeding. As held in Pramatha Nath
Talukdarcase second complaint could be dismissed after
a decision has been given against the complainant in
previous matter upon a full consideration of his case. H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
"i"
A Further, second complaint on the same facts could be
entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely,
where the previous order was passed on an incomplete
record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint
or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which
8 could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought
on record in the previous proceedings, have been
adduced. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the
matter, therefore, should have been remitted back to the
learned Magistrate for the purpose of arriving at a finding
c as to whether any case for cognizance of the alleged
offence had been made out or not."
15. The second complaint petition filed by the third
respondent does not disclose any such exceptional case. It
reiterated the same allegations as were made in the first
D complaint petition. No fresh fact was brought to the notice of
the court. The core contention raised in both the complaint
petitions was alleged execution of a forged Will by Tika Ram
Tyagi.
E ' 16. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion
that it was not a fit case where cognizance of the offence could
have been taken or any summons could have been issued. The
impugned judgment, thus, cannot be upheld. It is set aside
accordingly. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
F 8.8.8. -4.
Appeal allowed
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "forged will"Sign in to search