ARUN BHANDARI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 10-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 3 S.C.R. 961 
ARUN BHANDARI 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2013) 
JANUARY 10, 2013 
[K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 -
Commercial 
transaction - Subsequently, purchaser filed criminal case 
against the sellers u/ss.406 and 420 /PC - Police report that C 
the case was of civil nature and no criminal offence made out 
- In protest petition by the complainant, CJM took cognizance 
of the case - Writ petition against order of CJM - High Court 
quashed the criminal case in respect of one of the accused 
- Held: A case which may apparently look to be of civil nature 
D 
may also contain ingredients of criminal offences - The facts 
of the instant case show that it was not purely civil in nature -
Neither the FIR nor the protest petition was ma/a fide, frivolous 
or vexatious, hence interference of High Court in exercise of 
its jun·sdiction u/Art. 226 was not justified - Prima facie case 
E 
is made out against the accused that they had the intention 
to cheat - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 406 and 420. 
F 
Respondent No.2 and her husband respondent No.3, 
claimed to be the owners of the property in question and 
offered to sell the same to the appellant. They jointly 
received a sum of Rs.1,05,00,00/- from the appellant 
towards part payment of the sale consideration. The 
agreement was executed on the basis of a registered 
agreement executed in favour of respondent No.3 by the 
original allottee to sell the property in question. The 
G 
appellant came to know that respon1ent No;2, in whose 
favour the original allottee had e::'-cuted a power of 
attorney, had already transferred the property in question 
961 
H 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
A to some other person. The appellant demanded refund 
of the advance amount. As the same was not refunded, 
he lodged an FIR. The police gave its report that the case 
was of civil nature and no criminal offence was made out. 
On the protest petition of the appellant, the Chief Judicial 
B Magistrate (CJM) held that even if the suit could be filed, 
the facts of the case revealed criminal culpability and 
hence he took cognizance u/ss.420 and 406 IPC. The 
Criminal Revision, against the order was dismissed 
approving the order of CJM. Respondent filed writ 
c petition. High Court dismissed the writ petition so far as 
respondent No.3 (husband) was concerned holding hat 
there was prima facie case for offences u/ss.406 and 420 
IPC. The petition was allowed so far as respondent No.2 
(wife) was concerned holding that there was no privity of 
0 
contract between respondent No.2 and the complainant. 
Hence the present appeal by the complainant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court, while exercising power 
E under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the 
CrPC, has to adopt a very cautious approach. The 
powers possessed by the High Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. are 
very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires 
great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful 
F to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based 
on sound principles and such inherent powers should 
not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It is not 
proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the 
complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to 
G determine whether a conviction would be sustainable 
and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the 
proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous 
to assess the material before it and conclude that the 
complaint could not be proceeded with. The meticulous 
H 
ARUN BHANDARI v. STATE OF U.P. 
963 
analysis of the case is not necessary and the complaint 
A 
has to be read as a whole and if it appears that on 
consideration of the allegations in the light of the 
statement made on oath of the complainant that the 
ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and 
there is no material to show that the complaint is ma/a 
B 
fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be 
no justification for interference by the High Court. One of 
the paramount duties of the superior court is to see that 
person who is absolutely innocent is not subjected to 
prosecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and c 
wholly untenable complaint. [Paras 27] (983-C-G; 984-A] 
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shanker 
Srivasta..,·a, /AS and Anr. (2006) 7 SCC 188: 2006 (4) Suppl. 
SCR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.