2019 (2) TMI 1894 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reinstates Trial Court order on criminal process issuance

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the Trial Court's order for issuing process against the ... Forgery and preparing false documents - dispute is of civil nature - the complainant alleged that the Respondents made themselves liable for being prosecuted Under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the Accused persons. The High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the Accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the Accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. Appeal allowed. Issues:1. Setting aside of process issued by Trial Court against Respondents.2. Allegations of forgery and preparing false documents.3. Dispute categorized as civil in nature.4. Jurisdiction of High Court in quashing criminal proceedings.5. Evaluation of merits at the stage of issuing process.6. Prima facie case for summoning Accused.7. Interference with Trial Court's order by High Court.8. Ingredients of criminal offences in the complaint.9. Prima facie determination of offences.10. Quashing of criminal complaints on civil nature grounds.Analysis:1. The Trial Court issued process against the Respondents in a complaint filed by the Appellant, alleging forgery and false document preparation. The Respondents challenged this in a Writ Petition, which was allowed by the High Court. The High Court held that the dispute was civil in nature, setting aside the process. The Appellant appealed against this decision.2. The complaint alleged that the Respondents committed offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code based on a development agreement dated 11.12.2002. The police report suggested a civil nature of the matter. The Trial Court, after recording statements, directed process issuance, which was challenged by the Respondents through revision.3. The High Court, in the Writ Petition, found the dispute to be civil and dismissed the criminal proceedings. It noted that the disputed document was not a sham, as per Shamrao's statements during his lifetime. The High Court accepted the argument that the matter was civil in nature.4. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the process issuance. It emphasized that at the stage of summoning, the Magistrate should focus on establishing a prima facie case, not on evaluating evidence for conviction. Quashing criminal proceedings is only justified if the complaint is frivolous or does not disclose an offence.5. The Court highlighted that defenses or potential trial outcomes leading to acquittal are not grounds for quashing a complaint initially. The focus should be on whether the complaint's allegations constitute a criminal offence. The Court referred to previous judgments to support this principle.6. The Appellant argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the Trial Court's order without evaluating the merits. The Respondents contended that the complaint was frivolous and of a civil nature, not meeting the offence criteria.7. After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in setting aside the Trial Court's order. It stated that the correctness of allegations should be determined during the trial, not at the process issuance stage. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed solely based on appearing civil in nature if the offence ingredients are prima facie present.8. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the Trial Court's order for issuing process against the Respondents.