LexINDER MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
y INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANR. v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS. OCTOBER 9, 2007 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ. R.V. RA VEENDRAN AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482-lnherent powers of High Court-Scope and ambit of- Dispute of civil nature between parties emanatingfrom cancellation A B c of General Power of Attorney and termination of agreement to sell- Civil suit pending in court-On complaint, an FIR registered and criminal proceedings initiated-Non-bailable warrants issued-High D Court declining to quash criminal proceedings-HELD: Dispute being purely of civil nature and civil suit of complainants pending in court of competent jurisdiction, initiation of criminal proceedings by them is clearly an abuse of process of Court-Judicial Magistrate, without properly comprehending the nature of controversy involved and without exhausting the available remedies issued non-bailable E warrants disregarding the settled legal position-If any abuse of process leading to injustice is brought to notice of Court, then Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provision in Statute-Judgment of High Court in declining to exercise its inherent power has led to grave miscarriage F ofjustice-All proceeding emanating.from FIR shall stand quashed- Administration of criminal justice-Inherent powers of Court-Penal Code, 1860-ss. 4201467. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 70-Warrant of arrest-Non-bailable warrants-Issuance of- HELD: Issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty-Therefore, Courts have to be extremely careful in issuing non-bailable warrants-Guidelines with regard to issuance of G 847 H ..,. 848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R A non-bailable warrants re iterated-Constitution of India-Article 21- Pract ice and Procedure. A contract for construction of a bathing ghat on the bank of river Ganga was entered into between Sanatan Dharma Pratinidhi B Sabha and the contractor-respondent no. 3. On completion of the contract, the ~resident of the Sabha executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the contractor in respect of 13.5 bighas out of 26 bighas of its land bearing khasra no. 140, in consideration of the construction work carried out by respondent no. 3. The parties executed a further agreement to sell the remaining 11.19 bighas of C land ofkhasra no.140 to respondent no. 3, who paid earnest money to the Sabha. According to the agreement, the balance amount was to be paid by 31.3.1997 and time was essence of the contract. On the death of the President of the Sabha, at the request ofrespondent no. 3, a fresh General Power of Attorney in respect of the said 13.5 D bighas of land was executed in favour of his son-respondent no. 4. It was the case of the Sabha that it came to know that respondents no. 3 and 4, by misrepresentation and mism;ing the General Power of Attorney, were attempting to sell the entire 26 bighas of land of khasra no.140 as they executed 29 registered sale deeds in respect E of13.5 bighas ofland and respondent no. 4 sold the remaining 11.19 bighas ofland to his father, respondent no. 3, by e:x.ecuting three sale deeds. Thereupon the General Secretary of the Sabha, appellant no. 1, after sending a notice dated 30.4.2001 to respondents no. 3 and 4 cancelled the General Power of Attorney. In order to protect the F interests of the Sabha, appellant no.1 sold the remaining 11.19 bighas ofland ofkhasra no. 140 to a third person on 18.12.2002. Upon this, respondent no. 3 filed complaints u/ss. 420, 467 ~nd 120;.B IPC, and ultimately an FIR was registered. Meanwhile he also filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) for cancellation of the G sale deed executed by the Sabha. H In the criminal proceedings the Judicial Magistrate issued non- bailable warrants against the appellants and others, who approached the High Court under s. 482 Cr.PC for quashing the criminal proceedings against them. The High Court dismissed the petition. INDERMOHANGOSWAMlv. STATE 849 y It was contended for the appellants that the controversy A between the parties was purely of a civil nature since the entire issue related to ascertaining the right and title with regard to the land in dispute in respect of which a suit was pending before a competent civil court, and, in the circumstances, the High Court gravely erred in dis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.