BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1165 · Decided: 31-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1165 : 2024 INSC 77
Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia 
v. 
State of Bihar & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 2024)
31 January 2024
[Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah*, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for 
quashing of the FIR registered u/ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 
IPC against the vendee for the criminal acts, misuse of power 
of attorney-PoA, misappropriation of property, and executing 
fraudulent sale deed, when he had no role either in the execution 
of the PoA nor in any misdeed by the PoA holder vis-à-vis the 
land-owners/principals.
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of 
FIR – Power of Attorney-PoA executed by the landowners/
principals, including the informant  and others in favour of 
the one for management and maintenance of their property 
– Allegations that the PoA holder sold some portion of the 
landowners’ property to the appellant-vendee and executed 
the sale deed at Dehradun in favour of the vendee where the 
land is located, and when asked, the PoA did not respond to 
the legal notice nor gave any information to the informant 
and others about the sale – Case registered u/ss. 409, 467, 
468, 471 and 420 IPC against the accused and the vendee 
alleging commission of criminal acts, that by misusing the 
PoA, they misappropriated the property, did not rendition the 
account and obtained the Sale Deed without the signatures 
of the land-owners – Magistrate, Buxar took cognizance of 
the offences – Petition for quashing of FIR – Rejected by the 
High Court – Challenge to, by the appellant:
Held: In the appropriate case, protection is to be accorded 
against unwanted criminal prosecution and from the prospect 
of unnecessary trial – On facts, dispute, if any, is between the 
land-owners/principals inter-se and/or between them and the PoA-
1166
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
holder – It would not be proper to drag the vendee into criminal 
litigation, when he had no role either in the execution of the PoA 
nor any misdeed by the PoA holder vis-à-vis the land-owners/
principals – Moreover, the entire consideration amount was paid by 
the vendee to the PoA-holder – Furthermore, the only controversy 
was related to the Sale Deed executed by the PoA-holder in favour 
of the vendee in Dehradun for property located at Dehradun, thus, 
needs to be examined by the Dehradun courts – Moreover, a suit 
filed by the land-owners/principals at Dehradun for the same cause 
of action was dismissed in favour of the vendee – Thus, case for 
interference not made out – Impugned judgment is set aside – FIR 
as also the order taking cognizance and all consequential acts 
emanating therefrom, insofar as they relate to the appellant, are 
quashed. [Paras 21, 34, 35]
Deeds and documents – Construction of a deed or a contract – 
Power of Attorney-PoA executed by the landowners/principals, 
in favour of the person from whom the vendee purchased the 
land – Clauses 3 and 11 of the PoA together authorized the 
PoA-holder to execute deeds, including of/for sale, receive 
consideration in this regard and proceed to registration 
upon accepting consideration on behalf of the land-owners/
principals – Clause 15 of the PoA, states that the PoA-holder 
was authorized to present for registration the sale deeds or 
other documents signed by the land-owners/principals and 
admit execution thereof – Interpretation of:
Held: Is to be interpreted harmoniously as also logically the effect 
of a combined reading of the clauses – When the three clauses 
are read, Clause 15 is, in addition to Clauses 3 and 11 of the PoA 
and not in derogation thereof – Besides the contingencies where 
the PoAholder had been authorized to execute any type of deed 
and receive consideration and get registration done, which included 
sale of movable/immovable property on behalf of the landowners/
principals, the land owners/principals had also retained the authority 
that if a Sale Deed was/had been signed by them, the very same 
PoAholder was also authorized to present it for registration and 
admit to execution before the authority concerned – Thus, there is no 
contradiction between Clauses 3, 11 and 15 of the PoA – All three 
clauses are capable of being construed in such a manner that they 
operate in their own fields and are not rendered nugatory – Even 
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1167
Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v. State of Bihar & Anr.
if a conflict 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.