Supreme Court of India
RAMESH DUTI & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 929
- Decided
- 21 July 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, allowing the appeal and holding that the FIR cannot be quashed under Section 482 as the case falls within the categories where the inherent power may be exercised to prevent abuse of process.
Summary
The appellants, members of the managing committee of Shastri Memorial School, obtained a civil decree for possession of a plot of land and later sold a portion of it, after which a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged alleging cheating and offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. The appellants sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the High Court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, whether the civil decree or revenue record created a title that could bar criminal liability, and whether the parameters laid down in *Bhajan Lal* justified exercising the inherent power under Section 482. The Court held that an entry in the revenue record is merely evidence of possession and does not create title, and that the appellants' transfer of land without full ownership did not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 467, 468 and 469. It further observed that the FIR, taken on its face, did not prima facie constitute an offence but the case fell within the categories where Section 482 may be invoked to prevent abuse of process. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, leaving the FIR in force. The judgment clarified the limited scope of quashing powers and the distinction between civil title and criminal liability.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR lodged against the appellants can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether the appellants' possession and civil decree confer a title that bars criminal prosecution for cheating and related offences.
- Whether the alleged transfer of land without complete ownership satisfies the elements of Sections 467, 468 and 469 of the IPC.
- Whether the parameters laid down in *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal* apply to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 41, s. 42, s. 43, s. 44
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 420, s. 465, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471
Subjects
Section 482 CrPCFIR quashTitle to immovable propertyRevenue recordCivil decreeCriminal proceedingBhajan Lal testCheatingPossessionLand mutation
Judgment
[2009) 10 S.C.R. 1163
RAMESH DUTI & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1284 of 2009)
JULY 21, 2009
B
(5.8. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - FIR lodged
under ss.4201465146714681471 and 1208 /PC - Quashing of
_, A/legation against appellants was that suit land, though in C
possession of appellants, vested in government and
appellants by transferring the suit land cheated government
- Petition uls.482 - High Court dismissed the petition -
Correctness of - Held: Not correct - Entry in revenue record
of rights is merely an evidence of possession - Such an entry o
would not create title and absence thereof would not
extinguish the same - Unless there exists a statutory interdict, ·
a person in possession may transfer his right, title and interest
in favour of a third party - In the facts and circumstances of
the case, only because appellants transferred a portion of the E
land without having complete ownership over it by itself would
not satisfy the ingredients of ss.467, 468 and 469 /PC - Some
of the parameters laid down in *Bhajan Lal were satisfied -
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420-465146714681471 and 1208.
Appellants were members of managing committee of F
a school. They filed a suit in 1990 praying for a decree
for possession of the suit land in respect of which a
decree acknowledging a transfer in their favour was
passed. The suit was decreed. An order of mutation was
thereafter passed in their favour which however was G
subsequently cancelled. Appellants sold a part of land.
The third respondent raised a question with regard to the
purported illegal transfer by appellants before the District
Grievance Committee. An FIR was lodged stating that on
1163 H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.
A cancellation of mutation in favour of appellants, the
ownership vested in the Central Government and the
appellants by selling the land cheated the government.
The appellants filed petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing the FIR which was dismissed. Hence the
8 appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Indisputably, the appellants, as members of
the society, were running a school on the plot in
C question. They obtained a decree in their favour. The
decree was not only passed against the State but also
against the Collector and one Kahla Singh who claimed
his right, title and interest in or over the said property. The
respondents filed a counter affidavit wherein it was
D stated that the title in respect of the lands in question was
with the Central Government. [Para 14] [1172-A-C]
2. Title in or over an immoveable property has many
facets. Possession is one of them. Unless there exists a
statutory interdict, a person in possession may transfer
E his right, title and interest in favour of a third party. [Para
15] [1172-D]
Vinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra (2009)
2 sec 532, relied on.
F
3. It is not correct in contending that only because
the order of mutation made in favour of the appellants
was cancelled, the same would lead to conclusion that
they had no title over the property. It is now a well settled
G principle of law that entry in a Revenue Record of rights
merely is an evidence of possession. Such an entry does
not create title; absence thereof does not extinguish the
same. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the
appellants committed acts of criminal misconduct while
H
RAMESH DUTI & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 1165
ORS.
trying to obtain orders of mutation but it is another thing A
to say that only because they filed such an application,
the same by itself would tantamount to commission of a
criminal offence. In the facts and circumstances of this
case, only because appellants transferred a portion of the
property without having complete ownership over them B
by itself would not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 467,
468 and 469. (Paras 16 and 17] [1172-E-H; 1173-A)
.I
Faqruddin (Dead) through LRs. v, Tajuddin (Dead)
through LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 12; Devendra & Ors. v. State of C
U.P. & Anr 2007 (9) SCC 613, relied on.
4. The provisions of Section 41 to 44 of the Indian
Evidence Act do not suggest that the decision of the Civil
Court would be binding on the Criminal Courts. The
institution of a criminal case must be held to be an act of D
ma/a fide on the part of the respondents in the backdrop
of events which stand admitted. This case, therefore,
satisfies some of the parameters laid down in *Bhajan
Lal. [Para 18) (1173-D-E, G-H]
Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad 2009 (5) SCALE E
527; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp.
1 sec 335, relied on.
Case Law Reference :
F
(2009) 2 sec 532 relied on Para 15
(2008) 8 sec 12 relied on Para 16
2001 (9) sec 613 relied on Para 17
2009 (5) SCALE 527 relied on Para 18 G
1992 Supp. 1 sec 33,5 relied on Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A No. 1284 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.05.2008 of the High ,_
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 12308-M of 2001.
B D.K. Bhatti, Chitranjan Mishra, Dr. Manohar Singh Bakshi,
M. Dev Suman Mohan Puria and Debasis Misra for the
Appellants.
Anil Grover, Ms. Shubhangi Tuli, Rahul Khurana, Kuldip
c Singh for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
5.8. SINHA, J. 1 Leave granted.
D 2. The appellant herein is aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with a judgment and order dated 27.05.2008 passed by a
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous No.12308 of 2001
whereby and whereunder an application filed by them purported
E to be under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for quashing a First Information Report lodged at the direction
of Respondent No.4 by the respondent No.2 on 23.3.2001 for
the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections
420/465/467/468/471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code has
been dismissed.
F
3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The
appellants are members of the Managing Committee of Shastri
Memorial School, Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana. The said society is
registered under the Societies Registration Act in the year
G 1982.
4. Allegedly, the land in question was said to have been
transferred to one Kahla Singh by the Tehsildar in the year
1977-78. He filed a suit being Civil suit No.309 against his
daughter-in-law wherein a decree acknowledging a transfer in
H
RAMESH DUTT & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 1167
ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.)
favour of the latter was passed. The appellants are said to have A
made a representation before the concerned authority in
)
relation to the functioning of the school after passing of the
aforementioned decree came to their knowledge. It is stated
that a report dated 14.1.1983 was submitted by the then
Tehsildar (Sales), Ludhiana showing the school to be an . B
existing one whereafter the name of the appellants had been
recorded in the record of rights.
They filed a suit in the year 1990 praying for a decree for
possession. By reason of a judgment dated 15.3.1990, the said
suit was decreed. In the said suit, State of Punjab, Collector
c
Ludhiana as well as the said Kahla Singh were arrayed as
defendants.
5. An order of mutation was thereafter passed in their
favour which, however, is said to have been cancelled. D
Indisputably, a proposal was moved for lodging of a First
Information Report.
6. ·Appellants sold a part of the land to Mis Everest Girls
School. Allegedly sale proceeds therefrom had been spent on
E
construction of sixteen rooms in the existing school. The
vendees of the said premises, i.e., the Mis. Everest School
were threatened with dispossession by the supporters of
( respondent Nos.3 and 5. A newspaper report to that effect also
appeared in 'Punjab Kesri'. They filed a civil suit in the court of
F
Civil Judge, Ludhiana wherein an order of status-quo was
passed in the following terms :
"In the meantime defendants are restrained from
interfering in possession of the plaintiffs in property
comprised in Khasra No.1219 khata No.2311571 as per G
Jamabandi for the years 1992-93, situated at Village
Saidan, Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana and further restraining the
defendants from interfering in the construction being raised
by the plaintiffs except in due course of Law till
21.12.1999." H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A 7. It appears that in a meeting held on 24.6.1999, the third
respondent raised a question with regard to the purported
illegal transfer by the appellants before the District Grievance ~
Committee. However, it was stated that he had obtained the
legal opinion that no offence is made out. The resolution
B adopted in the said meeting dated 24.6.1999 reads as under:
"Item No.15 Sh. Sat Pal Gausain, M.L.A. submitted an
application from the residents of Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana
regarding property No.918/4 which is alleged to be under
unauthorized possession of some persons. S.S.P.
c informed that about a year prior to it Managing Committee
of Shastri Memorial Model School sold the land for a sum
of Rs.9.85 lacs to Everest School. The allegation in the
application is that a property has two different members.
As per the record, land purchased by the Managing
D Committee Shastri Memorial Model School, bears
No.3849. After the investigation legal opinion has opined
that no offence is made out. This matter is between the
members of the Managing Committee of the school and
there is no action required on the part of the police.
E
The matter may be re-investigated after summoning both
the parties and complete report be submitted in the case
made."
8. The appellants also filed an application before the ...
F
respondent No.4 on 18.9.2000 stating their bona fide in the
matter besides pointing out the interest of the students of the
school. The Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana issued notice to
the school assessing the house tax. House Tax is being paid
by the appellants.
G
9. In the suit filed by the Everest School, applications were
filed by the supporters -of respondent Nos.3 and 5 for their
impleadment which were dismissed.
However, in a meeting dated 11.9.2000, again a resolution
H
RAMESH DUTT & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 1169
ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
was moved wherein a decision was taken to lodge a First A
Information Report against the appellants in the following terms
"The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana
informed on the application submitted by Sat Pal Gausain
8
MLA on behalf of certain residents of Shastri Nagar,
Ludhiana regarding illegal possession of some persons
on property No.918/4 that the land being ownership of
·- Rehabilitation Department no amount on the construction
can be spent.
c
The President ordered that accused who exchanged the
area, an FIR be registered against them and necessary
correspondence be made between Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation Ludhiana and the item was deleted
from the agenda." D
10. Pursuant to the said resolution, a First Information
Report was lodged, relevant portions whereof reads as under
"From the above, it is clear that the civil court has ordered E
for the possession by holding that applicant committee is
registered which is running School; their possession will
not be taken. Meaning thereby that order of the Court was
regarding possession. Whereas the revenue officials vide
mutation No.38144 has changed the ownership of the F
above property in favour of Shastri Memorial Middle
School Committee registered which has been ordered as
disputed by the District Collector, Ludhiana vide his order
dated 15.9.1999 and in compliance with that order, the
revenue officer has cancelled the mutation. It is worth G
mentioning here that Managing Committee of the above
school by selling the property got the mutation changed
and same has been cancelled after the sanction of the
mutation No.38144. This land was sold to Pankaj Sharma
Sia Rajinder Kumar of Everest Educational Society and H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A its President was Rajinder Kumar Sharma and the land
after sale was mutated vide mutation No.40762 (0-2-00- ..
300 Sq. Yds), 40763 (0-1-17-275 Sq.yds) 40064 (0-2-13
400 Sq.yds) because of cancellation of muatation
No.38144 their sansity has also come in. Now, ownership
B of this land vests in the Central Govt. Your attention is
invited to letter No.906/IPC dated 11.5.2000 and the report
that now the Central Govt. has been shown as owner of
this land. Sh. Jaspal Singh, the then Halqa Patwari and
Circle revenue officer Jagdeep Singh are guilty as in order
to usurp the Govt. land, with dishonest attention in order
c
to give undue benefit to the members of the Managing
Committee of the School, have sanctioned mutation
against orders of the Court. Similarly, these members of
the Managing Committee of the School who in connivance
with the revenue officers, have got the land transferred in
D
favour of the School and have further sold it to Sh. Pankaj
Sharma of Everest Educational Society have cheated the
Govt. when they were not lawful owners of the land. In view
of decision of the Grievance Committee in its meeting
dated 11.9.2000 all the above said accused are liable for
E cheating including the members of the above Society and
along with predecessor. A case under above said sections
be registered and legal action be taken. In this connection
opinion of the District Attorney, Ludhiana has been .....
obtained and he has opined that case under Sections 420/
F 465/467/468/471 read with Section 120-8 IPC can be
registered. You are hereby informed that keeping in view
order of District Grievance Committee meeting held on
11.9.2000, necessary case be registered against above
said accused persons and this office may be informed
G about the action taken therein."
11. The appellants filed an application under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the
said First Information Report which by reason of the impugned
order has been dismissed.
H
RAMESH DUTT & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 1171
ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
12. Mr. D.K. Bhatti, learned counsel appearing on behalf A
., ' of the appellant, would contend:
(i) The High Court committed a serious error in so far
as it failed to take into consideration that the
admitted events would clearly and unequivocally
B
show that the First lnfonnation Report lodged by the
respondents was an act of mala fide on their part
and based on political consideration.
(ii) Appellants having obtained a decree in their favour,
a criminal proceeding would not be maintainable. c
(iii)
"'
The contents of the first information report, even if
given face value and taken to be correct in their
entirety, do not disclose an offence cognizable far
t less under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 read D
with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code ..
13. Mr. Anil Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent, on the other hand, urged:
(i) The appellants having obtained a decree for E
permanent injunction although they have no title in
or over the property in question, could not have
transferred a portion thereof to M/s. Everest School.
(ii) In view of an attempt on the part of the appellants
F
to get their names mutated in the Revenue Records
with the connivance of the Revenue Authorities, the
High Court must be held to be correct in declining
to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
G
,
(iii) In view of the decisions of this Court laying down
the law that the first information report can be
quashed only on limited grounds as for example in
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992
Supp. 1 sec 335], it is not a fit case where this H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution of India.
14. Indisputably, the appellants, as members of the society,
have been running a school on the plot in question. They have
obtained a decree in their favour. The decree had not only been
B
passed against the State but also against thfl Collector and Shri
Kahla Singh who had claimed his right, title and interest in or
over the said property.
..
Before us, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit
c wherein it has, inter alia, been stated that the title in respect of
the lands in question are with the Central Government.
The fact that respondents herein, acting in their official
capacity, are bound by the said decree is not in dispute.
D 15. Title in or over an immoveable property has many
facets. Possession is one of them. Unless there exists a '
statutory interdict, a person in possession may transfer his right,
title and interest in favour of a third party. [See Vinash Kumar
Chauhan v. Vy·ay Krishna Mishra [(2009) 2 SCC 532]
E
16. Mr. Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent. may not be correct in contending that only because
the order of mutation made in favour of the appellants had been
cancelled, the same ipso facto would lead to the conclusion that
F they have no title over the property. It is now a well settled
principle of law that entry in a Revenue Record of rights merely
is an evidence of possession. [See Faqruddin (Dead) through
LRs. v. Tajuddin (Dead) through LRs. [(2008) 8 SCC 12].
17. Such an entry does not create title; absence thereof
G does not extinguish the same. Furthermore, it is one thing to
say that the appellants had committed acts of criminal
misconduct while trying to obtain orders of mutation but it is
another thing to say that only because they filed such an
application, the same by .itself would tantamount to commission
H of a criminal offence. In the facts and circumstances of this
RAMESH DUTI & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 1173
ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.)
case, in our opinion, only because appellants are said to have A
'\
transferred a portion of the property without having complete
ownership over them by itself do not satisfy the ingredients of
Sections 46~, 468 and 469. This aspect of the matter is
covered by a recent decision of this Court in Devendra & Ors.
v. State of UP. & Anr. [2007 (9) SCC 613). B
18. We, however, make it clear that we do not intend to
lay down a law that the judgment of the Civil Court would be
binding on a criminal court in view of several decisions of this
Court.
c
In Seth Ramdaya/ Jat v. Laxmi Prasad [2009 (5) SCALE
527), this Court, while referring to a large number of decisions,
held as under:
"18. It is now almost well-settled that, save and except for o
Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act which refers to
Sections 40, 41, and 42 thereof, a judgment of a criminal
court shall not be admissible in a civil court."
The provisions of Section 41 to 44 of the Indian Evidence
Act do not suggest that the decision of the Civil Court would E
be binding on the Criminal Courts. Section 44 of the Indian
Evidence Act, reads as under :
"44. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or····
incompetency of Courl, may be proved.- Any party to a F
suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order
or decree which is relevant under sections 40, 41 or 42
and which has been proved by the adverse party, was
delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was
obtained by fraud or collusion." G
The institution of a criminal case must be· held to be an
act of mala fide on the part of the respondents in the
aforementioned backdrop of events which stand admitted. This
case, therefore, satisfies some of the parameters laid down in
several sub-pa_ras of paragraph 105 of Bhajan Lal (supra) H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A which read as under:
"105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapt!'lr XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series
B of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
c Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
D exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie
E constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
xxx xxx xxx
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
F or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
xxx xxx xxx
G
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
· so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
H
RAMESH oun & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 1175
ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
)()()( )()()( )()()( A
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
8
and personal grudge."
19. For the reasons aforementioned, the fmpugned
judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly.
Appeal is allowed. This Order, however, may not be construed
to be a judgment in respect of the right, title and interest over C
the property in question.
D.G . Appeal allowed.
•
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 482 CrPC"Sign in to search