TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion Bilari, District Moradabad, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. [For short, "IPC"] 3. According to the appellant, his father Shri Netrapal Singh purchased land admeasuring 8.592 hectares, situated in Khasra Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Village Sherpur Mafi, Tehsil Bilari, District Moradabad from one Akil Hussain by a registered sale deed dated 09.08.2000. After the purchase, the appellant's father applied for mutation of the property in his favour. The vendor Akil Hussain did not raise any objection before the Tehsildar. However, the Shaher Imam of Bilari with mala fide intent to usurp the property, filed objections alleging that the land was being used for Qurbani. The Tehsildar, Bilari, by order dated 19.04.2001, rejected the objections and directed mutation in favour of the appellant's father. 4. The appellant further averred that, since he opposed the performance of Qurbani on his land, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilari, at the behest of local politicians and the Shaher Imam, summoned the appellant and his family to Police Station Bilari on 20.01.2003. They were pressurized to sell the property to the Shaher I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port dated 10.06.2003 of the Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, the State rejected the request. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 3713 of 2003 before the High Court, seeking quashing of the State's order and transfer of investigation to an independent agency. During the pendency of the writ petition, the local police hurriedly filed charge sheets against the appellant, which fact was noticed by the High Court in its order dated 16.01.2004. 7. Stating that the FIR dated 05.02.2003 and charge sheet dated 16.04.2003 do not disclose any criminal offence and, at the highest, relate to civil disputes, for which the complainant had not availed appropriate civil remedies, the appellant filed Application No. 3856 of 2004 under Section 482 Cr. P.C seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings instituted against him. The High Court, by interim order dated 22.05.2004 stayed further proceedings arising of the FIR No. 47 of 2003. Ultimately, however, by the impugned judgment and final order dated 22.10.2019, the High Court dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred before this Court. 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2019) 11 SCC 706], wherein this Court held that the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is not confined to the stage of FIR and can be exercised even after filing of charge sheet, to prevent abuse of process of law. Similarly, in Mukesh and others v. State of UP and others [SLP (Crl) No. 12354 of 2024 decided on 29.11.2024], this Court held that the scope of Section 482 is wider than that of discharge proceedings, as in quashing petitions the accused may rely on documents outside the charge sheet to demonstrate abuse of process of law. 8.5. It was finally submitted that the present case squarely falls under the categories illustrated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], particularly Para 102(7), where, this Court held that proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide, or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to private or personal grudge, are liable to be quashed. 8.6. On these grounds, it was urged that the criminal prosecution launched against the appellant is malicious, mala fide, and a clear abuse of process of court, and therefore, the impugned order of the High Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missing the appellant's Section 482 petition suffers from no illegality. The High Court correctly recorded as follows: "No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out. It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage. In view thereof, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in impugned charge sheet. This application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed." 9.4. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel contended that a cognizable offence is clearly made out from the material gathered during investigation; the matter is under trial; and if the appellant has any defence, the same can only be established before the trial Court. The proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked to short-circuit the trial process. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record including the judgments relied by them. 11. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to recapitulate the settled legal principles governing the exercise of inherent po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... categories in Bhajan Lal are illustrative and not exhaustive, but they provide guiding principles to balance two competing considerations - (a)preventing abuse of process of law, and (b)ensuring that criminal proceedings are not stifled at the threshold on disputed questions of fact. 11.2. Equally, this Court has consistently cautioned that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C., cannot embark upon a "minitrial" or weigh the sufficiency of evidence, which falls within the domain of the trial Court. The scope of enquiry is confined to whether, on a plain reading of the FIR / complaint and accompanying material, the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. [See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madal Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330], HMT Watches v. Abida [(2015) 11 SCC 776], and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others [MANU/SC/0542/2022]]. 11.3. In Md. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar [(2019) 6 SCC 107], it was reiterated that appreciation of contradictions or inconsistencies in witness statements lies within the exclusive domain of the trial Court and not in proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Similarly, in CBI v. Ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplainant approached the appellant for a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-, but was allegedly advanced only Rs. 1,40,000/-. It is further alleged that, in connection with the said transaction, an agreement to sell dated 09.11.1998 was executed in respect of a plot owned by the complainant, and that the appellant procured three cheques from Respondent No. 2, which, upon presentation, were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Even if accepted in entirety, these allegations disclose, at best, a civil dispute and do not prima facie constitute the essential ingredients of the criminal offences alleged. 14. It is significant to note that prior to registration of the present FIR, the appellant had already initiated proceedings against Respondent No.2, namely a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (Complaint No. 2402840 / 2005) before the N.I. Court, Moradabad, as well as FIR No. 120/2002, in which, the complainant himself was arrested. The present FIR was lodged nearly three months after the filing of the Section 138 complaint and seven months after FIR No. 120/2002. The plea that the FIR is a retaliatory counterblast to the proceedings legitimately initiated by the appellant, therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n owes a particular amount to be paid to the Respondent No.4. However, the question is whether prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed by the appellant. 10. How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality. 11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of "Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It appears that this very decision was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the 4th respondent as....