Summary
The High Court wrongly quashed a prosecution for conspiracy and cheating arising from an allegedly fabricated family tree and partition deed used to secure land-acquisition compensation, by relying on an untested statement of the Sub-Registrar and on the pendency of a civil partition suit. The Supreme Court held that a prima facie case existed, that genuineness of the documents must be tested at trial, and that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject is no ground to quash criminal proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could quash the charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on the basis of the Sub-Registrar's statement that the partition deed bore the genuine thumb impression of the deceased.
- Whether a prima facie case under Sections 120B, 415 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC was made out against the respondents on the allegation of a fabricated family tree and partition deed.
- Whether the pendency of a civil suit for partition and for a declaration that the partition deed is void bars or justifies quashing the criminal prosecution on the same facts.
Provisions considered
- Sections 120B, 415 and 420 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The chain of events from the creation of a family tree omitting the daughters, a partition deed confined to the sons and grandsons, and the distribution of the acquisition compensation among the respondents disclosed a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy and cheating; the High Court's own acknowledgement that the respondents were bound to disclose the daughters' names in the family tree could not be squared with its finding that no offence under Section 420 was made out. (¶¶ 2, 14, 17, 18, 23)
- Sections 463, 464, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860The High Court concluded that forgery offences were not made out because the Sub-Registrar had stated that the deceased's thumb impression on the partition deed was genuine; the Supreme Court held that an uncross-examined statement could not be relied on to pronounce the deed genuine and that its genuineness must be put to trial. (¶¶ 14, 17, 18)
- Sections 102, 451 and 457, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Recited as background: the investigating agency had frozen the accused persons' bank accounts under Section 102, their applications under Sections 451 and 457 to de-freeze were rejected, and the High Court's view that non-submission of a report under Section 102(3) did not vitiate the seizure had attained finality with the dismissal of the SLPs. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9)
Held
- It is unwise to rely on the unverified, uncross-examined statement of a Sub-Registrar to ascertain the genuineness of a partition deed at the stage of quashing; the High Court erred in treating the deed as genuine on that basis and concluding that no forgery offence was made out. Where both the partition deed and the family tree were used to obtain the compensation, the genuineness of both documents must be put to trial. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- There is no bar against prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit if offences punishable under criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit; the same set of facts may give rise to civil and criminal remedies, which are coextensive and not mutually exclusive, and pendency of a civil action, even in a higher court, is no basis for quashing criminal proceedings. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter between the same parties is no justification to quash criminal proceedings where a prima facie case exists; here the sequence of a family tree excluding the daughters, a partition deed among only the sons and grandsons, distribution of the compensation to the respondents, and the alleged threats on discovery, showed a prima facie case warranting trial. (¶¶ 17, 23)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's order dated 23.11.2023 quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 892 and 897 of 2021 against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 set aside; trial court directed to continue the proceedings against them in accordance with law.