LexDR SONIA VERMA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 673 : 2024 INSC 227 Dr Sonia Verma & Anr. v. The State of Haryana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1433 of 2024) 07 March 2024 [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was a challenge to a decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, refusing to quash the F.I.R. registered u/s. 506, 420, 34, 120-B and 467 of the Penal Code, 1860, against the Appellants/Accused, on the ground that the dispute between the parties was essentially civil in nature. Headnotes Criminal Law – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Inherent powers – Scope of exercise of power for quashing the criminal proceedings: Held: The High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings when it was apprised of the fact that the substance of the Criminal Complaint served only a cast of doubt on the validity of a commercial transaction and an appropriate civil remedy was already being pursued. [Para 17] Abuse of Law – Dispute essentially civil in nature, given a cloak of criminality – Circumstances: Held: Circumstances such as the Complainant/ Respondent No. 2 registering the FIR after the filing of the Civil Suit by the Accused/Appellants, the Complainant selectively implicating the Appellants in a Criminal case, the Complainant’s failure to contest the matter before this Hon’ble Court, and the bonafides of the Accused/Appellants in paying the rent before their alleged purchase of the Suit property, can be concluded as an attempt on the part of the Complainant to shroud a civil dispute with a cloak of criminality. [Para 15] Case Law Cited Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673– relied on. 674 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Criminal proceedings; Quashing; Inherent Powers. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1433 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2023 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No.34512 of 2023. Appearances for Parties A.Sirajuddin, Sr. Adv., Chand Qureshi, Mrs. Arpana Soni, Ms. Preeti Chauhan, Mohit Yadav, Mrs. Aarti Pal, Surendra Ramgopal Agarwal, Waseem Akhtar Khan, Advs. for the Appellants. Abhinav Bajaj, A.A.G., Saksham Ojha, Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Leave granted. 2. The Appellants before us are aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in CRM-M-34512-2023 (the ‘Impugned Order’) whereby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh refused to quash FIR No. 375/2022 dated 31.10.2022 (the ‘Subject FIR’), registered against the Appellants for offences under Section(s) 506, 420, 34, 120-B and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the ‘IPC’). Brief Facts: 3. The uncontested facts are as follows: (i) the Appellants are doctors who are running the Surendra Maternity and Trauma Hospital (the ‘Hospital’), located in village Suthani, Tehsil Bawal, Rewari, Haryana; (ii) the Appellants were paying rent to Respondent No. 2’s son at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month for the Hospital property until August 2022; (iii) the original owner of the land upon which the Hospital stands was Kaptan Singh i.e., husband of Respondent No. 2. [2024] 3 S.C.R. 675 Dr Sonia Verma & Anr. v. The State of Haryana & Anr. 4. Thereafter, as per the Appellants version, vide registered sale deed No. 1485 dated 23.08.2022 (the ‘RSD’), the Appellants purchased the land on which the Hospital stood i.e., Khewat No. 1, Khatauni No. 1, Mustkil No. 33, Killa No. 26, village Suthani, Tehsil Bawal, Rewari, Haryana (the ‘Suit Property’), for a sale consideration of Rs. 43,00,000/-, from one Sher Singh. Pursuant to this purchase, the Appellants discontinued the payment of rent to Respondent No. 2’s son. 5. Fearing dispossession from the Suit Property, the Appellants filed Civil Suit No. 294/2022 on 27.09.2022, before the Court of Addl. Civil Judge, Bawal, seeking a decree of permanent injunction against Respondent No. 2, her husband and one Babu Lal (the ‘Civil Suit’). In the Civil Suit, an order granting ad-interim injunction was passed in favour of the Appellants on 18.11.2022. While granting this protection, the Court found that the Appellants had a prima facie case as they had produced three registered sale deeds carrying similar description of the Suit Pro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.