DILBAG RAI versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1138 · Decided: 03-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1138                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
DILBAG RAI
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2018)
DECEMBER 03, 2018
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of FIR/
criminal proceedings under – On facts, proceedings arising out of
F.I.R. registered u/ss. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC –
Quashed by the High Court on the ground that the complainant
had failed to make out any criminal intent on the part of the accused
– Justification of – Held: High Court was not justified in taking
recourse to its power u/s. 482 to quash the proceedings – High
Court lost sight of crucial aspects which emerged during the course
of the investigation – It was complainant’s case that though the
accused did not have title to the property, she had dealt with the
property and it was on that basis that the complainant was induced
to part with valuable consideration – Furthermore, the correctness
of these allegations is a matter of trial – Thus, the order of the High
Court is set aside.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1509 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 35679 of 2014.
Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, J. B. Mudgil, Dr. Shivani, Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal Advs. for the Appellant.
Vishwa Pal Singh, Vijay Kumar, Dr. Monika Gusain, Manpreet
K. Bhallu,  Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 11.2.2016
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the impugned
judgment, the High Court has quashed the proceedings arising out of
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1138
1138
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1139
F.I.R. No. 210 dated 21.6.2014 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467,
468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the Penal Code”) at
Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.
3. The complainant is in appeal in these proceedings. The case of
the appellant is that on 1.12.2011, the accused, who is impleaded as
respondent No. 2, entered into an agreement to sell a property
admeasuring 8 marlas situated at Patti Jhabran, behind Lucky Colony,
Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.  An amount of Rs. 10 lakhs is said to
have been paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell.  The
complaint states that though the agreement recites that possession of
the property was handed over, as a matter of fact, the possession was
not transferred.
4. Since the accused did not proceed to complete the transaction,
the appellant on 30.1.2014 filed an application before the Superintendent
of Police, District Kurukshetra for registration of a complaint and for
taking action against respondent No. 2 and her husband Gurcharan Singh.
5. The case was referred to the Economic Crime Cell,
Kurukshetra.  On enquiry, the Economic Crime Cell submitted its report
dated 4.3.2014 concluding that the dispute was of a civil nature.
6. The appellant thereafter filed an application under Section 156(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CrPC”) and on the direction of
the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, Kurukshetra, F.I.R. No. 210 was registered
on 21.6.2014 at the Police Station, Shahabad Markanda, District
Kurukshetra.
7. The accused filed an application being CRM-M No. 35679 of
14 before the High Court for quashing the FIR on the ground that the
dispute was of a civil nature. During the course of the investigation, the
statement of the owner of the plot was recorded on 27.10.2014 to the
effect that the plot in fact belongs to his wife Sushila.
8. Eventually after investigation, a chargesheet under Section 173
CrPC was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 20.11.2014 for
offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code.
9. Charges have been framed on 11.12.2014. The trial commenced
and five prosecution witnesses were examined.
10. The High Court by its impugned order dated 11.2.2016, quashed
the proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. on the ground that on a plain
reading of the FIR, the complainant had failed to make out any criminal
intent on the part of the accused.
DILBAG RAI v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1140                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
11. Assailing the judgment of the High Court, it has been submitted
on behalf of the appellant that the Hig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.