LexDEVENDRA &ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S. C.R. 872 A DEVENDRA &·ORS. .. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Criminal Appeal No. 940 of 2009 .. B MAY 6, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 420, 467, 468 and 469 - Civil litigation between co-sharers regarding extent of their shares - One of the parties selling a portion of the suit property to • c third party - Other litigating party filing complaint alleging - cheating and forgery- FIR lodged - Petition for quashing FIR • dismissed - After investigation cognizance of the offences taken by Magistrate - Petition for quashing the criminal proceedings dismissed - On appeal, held: Execution of sale D deed of the property claiming title to which the vendor was not entitled, would not, on facts, amount to cheating or forgery - Proceedings were liable to be quashed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482. E Res Judicata - Applicability of - Held: The principle of res judicata is not applicable in criminal proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.11 During pendency of a litigation between the co- -- sharers, regarding extent of their respective shares, two F of the co-sharers (Appellant Nos.1 & 2) sold a portion of ) the property to a third party. The other co-sharer (respondent No.2) filed a suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed, which is still pending. Thereafter respondent No. 2 filed a complaint as a G result thereof FIR was lodged. Appellants' application for quashing the FIR was dismissed by High Court. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against them and CJM took cognizance of the offences ulss. 420, 467, 468 H 872 ... -· DEVENDRA & ORS. V STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 873 and 469 IPC. Appellants' another application challenging A the order of CJM wad dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A distinction must be made between a civil B wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out. [Para 29] [887-C-D] c 2. In the instant case, it is not correct to say that by reason of execution of a deed of sale claiming title over the property to which the appellants were not entitled to, the complainant-respondent had been cheated. Appellants had not made any representation to the D complainant. No contract and/ or transaction had been entered into by and between the complainant and the appellants. [Para 21] [881-D-E] V Y Jose v State of Gujarat and Anr. (2009) 3 SCC 78 - E referred to. 3. A misrepresentation from the very beginning is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence of cheating, although in some cases, an intention to cheat may develop at a later stage of formation of the contract. [Para 22] [882-E] F Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Ors. v State of Bihar and Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168; Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736; Veer Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal and Anr. 2007 (9) SCALE 502; VY Jose v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2009) 3 SCC 78; Ravindra Kumar G Madhanlal Goenka and Anr. v. Mis. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners and Anr. 2009 (6) SCALE 162 - referred to. 4. Making of any false document, in view of the definition of 'forgery' is the sine qua non therefor. What H 874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A would amount to making of a false document is specified .. in Section 464 IPC. What is, therefore, necessary is to execute a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document inter alia was made by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he B knows that it was not made. Appellants are the owners of the property. They have executed a sale deed. Execution of the deed of sale is not denied. If somebody is aggrieved by the false assertions made in the said sale deed, he would be the vendees and not the co-sharers. Appellants "' c have not been alleged to be guilty of creating any false document. [Paras 23 and 24] [883-G-H; 884-A-D] ! 5. The High Court ordinarily would exercise its jurisdiction u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., if the allegations made in the First Information Report, even if given face value and taken D to be correct in their entirety, do not make out any offence. When the allegations made in the First Information Report or the evidences collec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.