[2024] 3 S.C.R. 673 : 2024 INSC 227
Dr Sonia Verma & Anr.
v.
The State of Haryana & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1433 of 2024)
07 March 2024
[Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ]
Issue for Consideration
The issue for consideration was a challenge to a decision of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana, refusing to quash the F.I.R.
registered u/s. 506, 420, 34, 120-B and 467 of the Penal Code,
1860, against the Appellants/Accused, on the ground that the
dispute between the parties was essentially civil in nature.
Headnotes
Criminal Law – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 –
Inherent powers – Scope of exercise of power for quashing
the criminal proceedings:
Held: The High Court ought to have quashed the criminal
proceedings when it was apprised of the fact that the substance of
the Criminal Complaint served only a cast of doubt on the validity
of a commercial transaction and an appropriate civil remedy was
already being pursued. [Para 17]
Abuse of Law – Dispute essentially civil in nature, given a
cloak of criminality – Circumstances:
Held: Circumstances such as the Complainant/ Respondent
No. 2 registering the FIR after the filing of the Civil Suit by the
Accused/Appellants, the Complainant selectively implicating
the Appellants in a Criminal case, the Complainant’s failure to
contest the matter before this Hon’ble Court, and the bonafides
of the Accused/Appellants in paying the rent before their alleged
purchase of the Suit property, can be concluded as an attempt
on the part of the Complainant to shroud a civil dispute with a
cloak of criminality. [Para 15]
Case Law Cited
Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC
673– relied on.
674 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Criminal proceedings; Quashing; Inherent Powers.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1433
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2023 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No.34512 of 2023.
Appearances for Parties
A.Sirajuddin, Sr. Adv., Chand Qureshi, Mrs. Arpana Soni, Ms. Preeti
Chauhan, Mohit Yadav, Mrs. Aarti Pal, Surendra Ramgopal Agarwal,
Waseem Akhtar Khan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Abhinav Bajaj, A.A.G., Saksham Ojha, Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav
Mittal, Ms. Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellants before us are aggrieved by the order dated
19.07.2023 passed in CRM-M-34512-2023 (the ‘Impugned Order’)
whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
refused to quash FIR No. 375/2022 dated 31.10.2022 (the
‘Subject FIR’), registered against the Appellants for offences under
Section(s) 506, 420, 34, 120-B and 467 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (the ‘IPC’).
Brief Facts:
3. The uncontested facts are as follows: (i) the Appellants are doctors
who are running the Surendra Maternity and Trauma Hospital (the
‘Hospital’), located in village Suthani, Tehsil Bawal, Rewari, Haryana;
(ii) the Appellants were paying rent to Respondent No. 2’s son at the
rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month for the Hospital property until August
2022; (iii) the original owner of the land upon which the Hospital
stands was Kaptan Singh i.e., husband of Respondent No. 2.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 675
Dr Sonia Verma & Anr. v. The State of Haryana & Anr.
4. Thereafter, as per the Appellants version, vide registered sale deed
No. 1485 dated 23.08.2022 (the ‘RSD’), the Appellants purchased
the land on which the Hospital stood i.e., Khewat No. 1, Khatauni
No. 1, Mustkil No. 33, Killa No. 26, village Suthani, Tehsil Bawal,
Rewari, Haryana (the ‘Suit Property’), for a sale consideration of
Rs. 43,00,000/-, from one Sher Singh. Pursuant to this purchase,
the Appellants discontinued the payment of rent to Respondent No.
2’s son.
5. Fearing dispossession from the Suit Property, the Appellants filed Civil
Suit No. 294/2022 on 27.09.2022, before the Court of Addl. Civil Judge,
Bawal, seeking a decree of permanent injunction against Respondent
No. 2, her husband and one Babu Lal (the ‘Civil Suit’). In the Civil
Suit, an order granting ad-interim injunction was passed in favour
of the Appellants on 18.11.2022. While granting this protection, the
Court found that the Appellants had a prima facie case as they had
produced three registered sale deeds carrying similar description of
the Suit Property in order to establish the chain of transfer leading
to their ownership. As per the Appellants, the Suit Property was
first transferred by Kaptan Singh to Babu Lal vide Sale Deed dated
20.07.2020 and thereafter from Babu Lal to Sher Singh vide Sale
Deed dated 22.08.2022.
6. On 29.10.2022, FIR No. 372/2022 was registered by the Appellants
against three persons, including Kaptan Singh and son of Respondent
No. 2 for offences under Section(s) 506, 120-B of the IPC. The
Appellants alleged that the accused persons had fraudulently collected
rent from them for a prolonged period, despite lacking ownership over
the Suit Property and were continuously threatening the Appellants
to vacate the Suit Property.
7. Two days later, the Subject FIR was registered against the
Appellants and Sher Singh by Respondent No. 2, who claimed
that she was the owner in possession of the land upon which the
Hospital stood, citing it as Killa No. 8, instead of Killa No. 26.
Respondent No. 2 stated that the property was transferred in her
favour by Kaptan Singh vide Transfer Deed dated 22.08.2017
and that she has never alienated the property. She alleged that
the Appellants, in collusion with Sher Singh forged the RSD and
wrongly entered the area of the property in the RSD with the
intention of usurping her property.
676 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
8. A charge-sheet was filed in respect of the Subject FIR on 17.03.2023
and as on date, the Appellants have been granted anticipatory bail
by the High Court.
9. The Appellants then approached the High Court under Section 482
CrPC seeking quashing of the Subject FIR. Vide the Impugned Order,
the High Court held that the allegations relate to Killa No. 8 in Mustkil
No. 33, which the Appellants never claimed to have purchased.
On this basis, the Court held that the ingredients of the offences
alleged were made out against the Appellants and consequently, the
application for quashing was dismissed.
Contentions & Analysis:
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants forcefully contends that the
dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and as the
appropriate civil remedy is already being pursued by the Appellants,
the criminal proceedings arising out of the Subject FIR amount to
an abuse of the process of law. In this context, it is also urged
that the High Court erred in failing to consider the litigation history
between the parties i.e., the pending Civil Suit and the FIR filed by
the Appellants against the family of Respondent No. 2.
11. Per Contra, Learned Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that
there exists sufficient prima facie evidence for the Trial Court to
proceed against the Appellants and that the mere existence of a civil
profile does not justify quashing of criminal proceedings.
12. It is pertinent to note that despite being served, Respondent No. 2
has not contested the matter before us.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the dispute herein, which forms
the genesis of the criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No.
2 is entirely civil in nature i.e., whether the Appellants are in lawful
possession of the Suit Property or, in essence, whether the RSD is
valid. To that extent, the Appellants have already taken recourse to
the appropriate civil remedy to establish their claim before the Civil
Court. The grievance of Respondent No. 2 i.e., whether the RSD is
forged and fabricated is an issue that will be considered by the Civil
Court while making its determination.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 677
Dr Sonia Verma & Anr. v. The State of Haryana & Anr.
15. A closer examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances
fortifies the conclusion that an attempt has been made by the
Respondent No. 2 to shroud a civil dispute with a cloak of criminality.
The following aspects of the case are pertinent to note: (i) Respondent
No. 2 registered the Subject FIR subsequent to the filing of the Civil
Suit and the filing of FIR No. 372/2022 by the Appellants; (ii) the
chain of sale deeds produced by the Appellants contain identical
descriptions of the Suit Property and yet Respondent No. 2 has
pursued criminal action only against the Appellants and Sher Singh
and not against Babu Lal and her husband; (iii) Respondent No. 2
has failed to contest the present matter before this Court; (iv) the
admitted position that the Appellants were bonafide in their payment
of rent before their alleged purchase of the Suit Property.
16. This Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
1
has
expounded on the scope of exercise of power under Section 482
CrPC whilst dealing with similar matters:
“7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to
be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal
offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged
therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence
are present or not has to be judged by the High Court.
A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a
criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a
dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak
of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is
available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this
case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal
proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.”
17. Therefore, when the High Court was apprised of such a matter
wherein the substance of the criminal complaint served only to cast
doubt on the validity of a commercial transaction (in this case, a sale
deed for the transfer of property), and the appropriate civil remedy
1 Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2012
678 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
was already being pursued, the High Court ought to have quashed
the criminal proceedings.
18. For the reasons stated above, the Impugned Order is set aside and
the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the Subject FIR are
quashed and set aside. Needless to say, this order shall not have
any effect on the Civil Suit pending between the parties and the
same shall be decided in accordance with law.
19. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed.
20. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Result of the case:
Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Hony. Associate Editor Appeal allowed.
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)
