LexGANGA DHAR KALITA versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015) 4 S.C.R. 373 GANGA DHAR KALITA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No.592 of 2015) APRIL 13, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Power c under, exercise of - Criminal complaint against appellant alleging that he fraudulently executed power of attorney by forging signatures of three persons - Civil suit also instituted by the parties - Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground that the dispute between the D parties is civil in nature, rejected by the High Court - On appeal, held: In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the a/legations made against the accused that one of the persons said to have executed the power of attorney was minor; and another was away from India, E even if the civil suit was instituted by the complainant, the High Court was justified in declining to interfere with the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: Having considered the law laid down by this Court that if the allegations in the FIR are not frivolous, malafilde or vexatious, it cannot be simply quashed for the reason that civil suit is also pending in the matter; G and that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the 373 H 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A complaint or the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence; and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of the allegations made against the accused, particularly B that one of the persons said to have executed the power of attorney was minor, and another was away from India, even if the civil suit was instituted by the complainant, the High Court committed no error of law in declining to interfere with the criminal proceedings initiated against C the appellant. [Para 9, 10, 11] [377-D; 379-H; 380-A-D] Arun Bhandari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2013 (3) SCR 961: (2013) 2 SCC 801; Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of WB. and others 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 284: (2002) 1 D SCC 555 - referred to. E Case Law Reference 2013 (3) SCR 961 referred to. Para 9 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 284 referred to. Para 10 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2015. F From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2014 of the G H Gauhati High Court in Criminal Petition No. 287 of 2009. M. L. Lahoty, Paban K. Sharma, Gargi B. Bharali, Himanshu Shekhar for the Appellant. Navnit Kumar, Corporate Law Group, Abir Phukan, V. ·Shyamohan, Shreyas Mehrotra, Apoorv Damodaran for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GANGA DHAR KALITA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 375 ORS. PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed A against judgment and order dated 20.3.2014, passed by the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Petition No. 287 of 2009, whereby said Court has dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") and declined to quash the criminal proceedings B initiated against the appellant. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. c 3. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report dated 25.1.2009 was got lodged by respondent No. 3 Rabindra Nath Kalita at Police Station, Panbazar, District Kamrup, Assam. It is alleged in said report that Kaustav K. Kalita is minor son of respondent No. 3. He (Kaustav K. Kalita}, D respondent No. 4 Rishi Raj Borgohain, and respondent No. 5 Yuva Raj Borgohain are pattadars-in-possession of the land measuring 11 Bigha 2 Kathas 12 Lachas of Patta No. 56, situated in Village Kamarkuchi under Panbari Mouza of the District. It is further alleged that the complainant (respondent E No. 3) came to know that appellant Ganga Dhar Kalita and one Birendra Kumar Das have sold the above mentioned land in favour of Sewali Oza, Kabindra Oza and Kaifie Oza. On enquiry, according to the complainant, it was discovered that Ganga Dhar Kalita (appellant) has fraudulently got executed a F power of attorney Deed No. 2062 dated 11.4.2006 by forging signatures of Kaustav K. Kalita, Rishi Raj Borgohain and Yuva Raj Borgohain. Rishi Raj Borgohain (respondent No. 4) is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.