Only Prima Facie Existence Of Offence Sought To Be Quashed Is To Be Examined While Exercising Inherent Powers U/S 482 CrPC: SC
The Supreme Court restored an FIR in a forgery while holding that only the prima facie existence of the offence sought to be quashed is to be examined is while exercising inherent powers.
The accused was charged with forging a Power of Attorney (PoA) on the basis of which a transfer of land was made. The appellant, who was the original owner of the said land, had instituted criminal proceedings after learning about the illegal transaction.
The trial court declared the transaction null and void and resultantly cancelled both the PoA and the sale deed. However, the Jharkhand High Court quashed the FIR.
The Supreme Court held that the premise on which the High Court had quashed the FIR was on the “wrong assumption, interpretation, and application of the law.”
Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, “It is all too well settled that while exercising such inherent powers what is required to be examined is only the prima facie existence of the offence sought to be quashed”
AOR Braj Kishore Mishra represented the appellant, while AOR Akhil Anand appeared for the respondents.
The accused argued that the original owner had already initiated civil proceedings and initiation of criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of Court. It was further argued that the alleged act “appears” to be “a civil wrong”, and not a criminal act. Resultantly, the Court remarked that the primary expert or the body possessing the complete acumen regarding the issue in service matters is the State itself and then the State becomes a party to the litigation before the Court.
The Court noted that the FIR against which the petition under Section 482 CrPC was preferred were offences contained only in the IPC and therefore the High Court was required to consider whether any of the grounds were made out or not.
The Court remarked, “It is for both the above reasons that the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the attending facts and circumstances, was unjustified and entirely unsustainable. The FIR and the consequent case, quashed vide the impugned judgment stand restored to the file of the concerned district Court.”
The Court held that the “discussion is conspicuously absent as to how the aspect of criminality is not present” from the High Court’s impugned judgment.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court restored the FIR and allowed the criminal appeal.
Cause Title: Navin Kumar Rai v. Surendra Singh & Ors. (2024 INSC 116)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Braj Kishore Mishra; Advocates Abhishek Yadav, Ruchit Mohan, Priyadarshi Kumar and Mini Kishore
Respondents: AOR Akhil Anand and Madhusmita Bora; Advocates Vishnu Sharma, Dipankar Singh and Anupama Sharma
