LexSARDAR RAVI INDER SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 127 : 2024 INSC 472 Sardar Ravi Inder Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2807 of 2024) 08 July 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court whether erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing the complaint filed by the second respondent stating that the contentions raised were rejected in an earlier criminal revision application, which cannot be re-agitated and therefore, there was a bar under Section 362 of the Cr. PC. Headnotes† Quashing – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.362 – When not applicable – Suit for specific performance of the agreements for sale filed against the appellants by the second respondent and his brother was later withdrawn in view of the out-of-court settlement – Effect on complaint filed by the second respondent – Writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing the complaint was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that there was a bar u/s.362 as the contentions raised were rejected in an earlier criminal revision application, which cannot be re-agitated – Correctness: Held: High Court lost sight of the fact that it was a substantive petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the complaint on the ground that the continuation of the same was an abuse of the process of law – The second prayer in the writ petition could have been hit by s.362, as the prayer was to quash the order on the application for discharge – But the first prayer was for quashing the complaint itself – Therefore, dismissing the first prayer in the writ petition on the ground of the bar of Section 362 of the Cr.PC was erroneous – Furthermore, the second respondent filed application in the pending suit seeking withdrawal thereof categorically stating that in view of the out- of-court settlement with the appellants, he would not lay any claim in any manner whatsoever over the suit properties – He * Author 128 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports never disputed the correctness of what was stated in the said application, and the order passed permitting the withdrawal of the suit – Thus, he gave up his claim under the agreements and therefore, continuing the complaint would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law – A case was made out to quash the complaint – High Court fell in error in refusing to do so – Complaint quashed. [Paras 15, 16] Case Law Cited State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [2004] Suppl. 6 SCR 460 : (2005) 1 SCC 568 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India. Penal Code, 1860 List of Keywords Quashing, Agreements for sale; Suit for specific performance; Suit withdrawn/Withdrawal of suit; Out-of-court settlement; Application for discharge; Same contentions rejected earlier; Giving up claim under the agreements; Continuing the complaint would be abuse of process of law. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2807 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2017 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WP No.243 of 2016 Appearances for Parties Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv., M/s. Legal Options, Ms. Sonia Dube, Shatadru Chakraborty, Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Ms. Surbhi Anand, Krishnan Agarwal, Tanishq Sharma, Ms. Saumya Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants. Saurabh Kumar, Ms. Rose Maria Sebi, Faisal Sherwani, Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi, Jayant Mohan, Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee, Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Advs. for the Respondents. [2024] 7 S.C.R. 129 Sardar Ravi Inder Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. 1. Leave granted. FACTUAL ASPECTS 2. In substance, the appellants’ prayer in this appeal is to quash the criminal proceedings of a complaint filed by the second respondent, Ganesh Kumar Agiwal. The present appellants are the trustees of Sardar Bahadur Sir Inder Singh (Personal Estate) Trust (for short, “the Trust”). The present appellants and one Gurdev Singh, as the trustees of the said Trust, entered into two separate agreements for sale dated 29th January 2001 (for short “the agreements”) in favour of the second respondent and one Uma Shankar Agiwal. In the agreements, the second respondent and Uma Shankar were described as the partners of Sri Mahakaleshwar Enterprises (for short, “the firm”). They entered into the agreements on behalf of the firm. Uma Shankar is the rea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.