Summary
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC arising from an oral agreement to sell land, finding that the complainant had dressed up a purely civil dispute over non-execution of a sale deed as a criminal case, with allegations in the FIR materially at variance with his own plaint for specific performance; the High Court's cryptic disposal of the quashing petition without touching the merits was disapproved, and exemplary costs of Rs 10 lakh were imposed on the complainant.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in disposing of a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR by a cryptic order that did not address the merits.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR, read with the complainant's own civil suit for specific performance arising from the same transaction, disclosed any offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC or merely a civil dispute.
- Whether the complainant should be visited with exemplary costs for misusing the criminal process, and whether the appellants were entitled to police protection.
Provisions considered
- Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860The FIR alleged that the appellants induced the complainant to part with money under an oral agreement to sell and then refused to register the property or return the money. Comparing the FIR with the complainant's plaint, which pleaded a different consideration and omitted the alleged assurance about a neighbouring plot, the Court found a plain dispute over non-execution of a sale deed given the cloak of a criminal case, with no element of any offence. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court's disposal of the quashing petition by merely recording that an advocate would represent the accused and that any application under Section 205 CrPC would be considered by the trial court, without addressing the merits, was held to be laconic, perfunctory and pedantic. (¶¶ 3, 4, 16, 17)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaRather than remand to the High Court, the Court itself examined the FIR and the plaint and, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings to secure the ends of justice and prevent further harassment of the appellants. (¶¶ 5, 18)
Held
- A High Court cannot dispose of a petition seeking quashing of an FIR in a cursory, cryptic manner without touching the merits; such an approach is perfunctory and warrants interference. Where the FIR and chargesheet themselves show the prosecution to be an abuse of process, this Court may quash the proceedings directly under Article 136 instead of remanding. (¶¶ 4, 5, 16, 17)
- Where the complainant's FIR alleges an oral agreement for one consideration covering additional properties and an assurance regarding a neighbour's plot, but his subsequently filed civil suit for specific performance pleads a different consideration confined to a single plot and makes no such allegation, the drastic variance shows manipulation of facts; a simple dispute over non-execution of a sale deed under an alleged oral agreement cannot be given the cloak of a criminal case under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Registration of an FIR on allegations disclosing no offence, let alone a cognizable one, followed by the arrest and eight-day custody of a 70-year-old accused, reflects misuse of the criminal machinery; in such a case the complainant should be penalised with exemplary costs rather than awarded interest on the sum he seeks to recover. (¶¶ 12, 14, 15, 21)
- The appellants' offer to refund the amount received through banking channels, and the complainant's refusal of it, are to be taken on record in the pending civil suit; the appellants, who apprehended harm from the complainant, were granted police security on prior intimation when visiting Telangana to manage their properties. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's order dated 28 April 2023 set aside; FIR No. 771 of 2020 and all consequent proceedings declared a gross abuse of process and quashed. Cost of Rs 10,00,000 imposed on the complainant (respondent No. 2), payable to the appellants' account within 30 days. The appellants' refund offer and the complainant's refusal to be recorded in the civil suit; police authorities to provide security to the appellants on prior e-mail intimation of visits to Hyderabad/Telangana. Pending applications disposed of.