T. VENGAMA versus T. DORA SWAMY NAIDU AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 27-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
T. VENGAMA 
-
v. 
1-
T. DORA SWAMY NAIDU AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 27, 2007 
B 
[P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
}' 
c 
s.482-FIR and consequent investigation cannot be quashed unless 
there is no offence spelt out from the same-On facts, FIR suggesting serious 
allegations against accused persons-Investigation was pending-At that 
stage the only inquiry to be made was as to whether complaint or FIR 
contained allegations of any offence-Prima facie there were ingredients of 
offences complained of and, therefore, High Court could not have quashed 
D FIR as well as investigation-Penal Code, 1860-ss.464, 423, 420134. 
The case of appellant-complainant was that he had executed a General 
Power of Attorney (GPOA) in favour of first respondent in respect of his 
properties. However, he cancelled the GPOA on realising that the first 
'""\ 
respondent was misusing the same. lnspite of cancellation ofGPOA, the first 
f 
E respondent executed a registered sale deed in favour of second respondent. 
An FIR was lodged on the basis of complaint filed by appellant against the 
respondents, which was sent for investigation under s.156(3) Cr.P.C. to the 
Police whereupon a criminal case was registered for the offences punishable 
under ss.464, 423, 420 r.w. s.34 IPC. 
F 
While the investigation was in progress, the respondents filed a petition 
under s.482 Cr.P.C. before High Court. High Court quashed the FIR holding 
that this was a case of civil profile and none of the ingredients that constituted 
~.~ 
the offences punishable under Sections 464, 423 and 420 read with Section 
34 IPC were discernible from the said allegations. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-Complainant contended that the 
investigation was yet incomplete and at that stage the respondents could not 
have rushed to the High Court for getting the FIR quashed. 
-\ 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
348 
T. VENGAMA v. T. DORA SW AMY NAIDU 
349 
-
HELD: I.I. It cannot be disputed that a private complaint was filed before A 
_.j 
the Magistrate who had made over the said complaint for investigation under 
• 
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. That order of the Magistrate has not been challenged. 
On the basis of that order the police registered a crime probably treating the 
complaint as the FIR. It is settled law that an FIR and the consequent 
investigation cannot be quashed unless there is no offence spelt out from the B 
same. The said FIR has to be taken on its face value and then it is to be 
examined as to whether it spells out the offences complained of. There was no 
question of considering the merits of the allegations contained in the FIR at 
that stage or testing the veracity of allegations. In this case, admittedly, the 
"11. 
investigation was in progress. The police had also not reported back to the 
Magistrate the result of their investigation. Under such circumstances, the c 
FIR could have been quashed only and only ifthere appeared to be no offence 
spelt out therein. (Para 7f (352-B-D( 
1.2. A glance at the FIR suggests that there were serious allegations 
against both the accused, respondents I and 2 inasmuch as it was specifically D 
alleged that inspitc of the revocation of the GPOA and inspite of a specific 
notice to that effect by the complainant to the first respondent, the first 
respondent went on dishonestly to execute the sale deed in favour of his own 
)-
daughter on the basis of the said revoked GPOA. It is alleged against the 
~ 
first respondent that he had no right over the property and yet he had executed 
a document in favour of the second respondent without any authority with an E 
intention to cause loss to the complainant and to cheat him. It was alleged 
against the second respondent that she was well aware that the first respondent 
was not competent to sell the property so as to defraud and cheat the 
complainant and, therefore, she also was liable to be punished under Sections 
464, 423, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. It was not for the judge at the stage F 
of investigation to examine the nature of the transaction and further to 
examine as to whether any offence was actually committed by the accused 
----)~ 
persons or not. At that stage the only inquiry which could have been made 
was as to whether the complaint or the FIR did contain allegations of any 
offence. Whether those offences were made out, even prima facie, could not 
have been examined at that stage as the investigation

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