MOSIRUDDIN MUNSHI versus MD. SIRAJ AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 497 · Decided: 09-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 7 S.C.R. 497 
MOSIRUDDIN MUNSHI 
v. 
MD. SIRAJ AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1168 of 2014) 
MAY 9, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 482 -
Jurisdiction of High Court - Exercise of, for quashing FIR! 
A 
B 
, criminal proceedings - On facts, Magistrate treating complaint · C 
uls.420 rlw s 1208 as FIR, forwarded it for investigation u/s. 
156 Cr.P.C. - Application uls.482 - High Court quashed the 
. complaint proceedings including FIR - Justification of - Held: 
High Court should not have quashed FIR - High Court 
adopted a strictly hyper technical approach - Investigation 
D 
should have been allowed to· proceed, when the averments 
in the complaint would prima facie make out a case for 
investigation by the authority- Penal Code, 1860 - s.420 rlw_ 
s.120!3. 
The appellant-complainant on believing the 
E 
F 
representation made by accused No.2, entered into an 
agreement for sale with respondent No.1 and paid huge 
amount. Respondent No.1 did not hand over the title 
documents to the appellant. The appellant then sent a 
legal notice to respondent No.1 and thereafter, filed a 
criminal. complaint before the Additional Chief 
Metropolitan Magistrate against respondent No.1 and 
accused No.2 u/s. 420 read with s. 1208 of the Penal 
Code. The ACMM forwarded the complaint for 
investigation u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. by treating the complaint 
G 
as FIR. Respondent No.1 filed an application u/s. 482 
Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings including the FIR. 
The appellant was impleaded as a party but was not 
497 
H' 
498 
SUPREME COUFff REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A served any notice. The High Court quashed the complaint 
proceedings declaring it to be a civil transaction. On 
remittance of the matter, the High Court again quashed 
the complaint proceedings. Hence, the instant appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The First Information Report should not 
have· been quashed and the investigation should have 
been allowed to proceed. [Para 10] [503-8] 
c 
1.2. The complaint does make averments so as to 
infer fraudulent or dishonest inducement having been 
made by respondent No.1 and accused No.2 pursuant to 
which the appellant parted with money. The averments 
in the complaint would prima facie make out a case for 
D investigation by the authority. [Para 7] [502-D-F] 
1.3. The High Court adopted a strictly hyper technical 
approach and such an endeavour may be justified during 
a trial, but certainly not during the stage of investigation. 
At any rate it is too pre-mature a stage for the High Court 
E to step in and stall the investigation by declaring that it 
is a civil transaction .wherein no semblance of criminal 
offence is involved. [Para 9) [502-H; 503-A] 
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others vs. State ofl 
F Bihar and another (2.000) 4 sec 168, Murari Lal Gupta vs. 
Gopi Singh (2005) 13 SCC 699; Ram Birajf Devi and another 
vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and another (2006) 6 SCC ~9 -
distinguished. 
· 
R. Ka/yani vs. Janak C. Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516; 
G Mahesh Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan (2009) 4 SCC 443 
- referred to. 
Case Law Reference : 
H 
(2000) 4 sec 168 
Distinguished 
Para 4 
MOSIRUDDIN MUNSHI v. MD. SIRAJ, 
499 
c2005) 13 sec 699 
c2006) 6 sec 669 
(2009) 1 sec 516 
c2009) 4 sec 443 
Distinguished 
· Distinguished 
Referred to 
Referred to· 
Para 4 
Para 4 
Para 5 
Para 6 
A 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal .. 
No. 1168 of 2014. 
Frorri the Judgment and Order dated 29·.06.2010 in CRR 
No. 1978/2006 of the High Court of Calcutta. 
-,.C 
Sumanta Chakrabotry, Chandan Kumar Rai for the 
Appellant. 
Pijush K. Roy, Kakali Roy, Mithilesh Kumar Singh for the 
Respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. CRMP No.12896 of 
20'11 seeking impleadment as a party is dismissed. 
2. This appeal is preferred against order dated June 29, 
2010, passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRR No.1978 
E 
of 2006 in FIR No.251 dated 10. 11.2005 on the file of Amherst 
Street Police Station registereCHor the alleged offences under 
Section 420/1208 IPC including the order dated 28.10.2005 in 
F 
case No.C/949 of 2005 passed by the Additional Metropolitan 
Magistrate, Calcutta. 
3. Briefly the facts are as follows : The appellant herein/ · 
complainant was looking for a plot of land for construction of G 
residential house in January 2005 and accused No.2, Masud 
Alam, a public servant represe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.