Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Altamas Kabir, Justice Anil R. Dave
Date of Judgment: 13 May 2010
Facts of the Case: Through SLP, the Petitioner, S.P. Gupta, challenged the order dated 19th February, 2008, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in dismissing the Petitioner’s application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the Criminal Complaint instituted against the Petitioner and the other co-accused by the Complainant (father of the Respondent) under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. By an order dated 7th April, 1992, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, issued summons to the Petitioner, Accused No.1 Smt. Motian Devi Lamba and Accused No.4 Shri G.R. Singhal under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The Revision Petition filed against the said order issuing summons having been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, on 8th February, 2005, the Petitioner moved the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court. Having regard to the allegations in the complaint, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said application upon holding that upon reading the complaint, it was not possible to conclude that not even a prima facie case had been made out against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court took note of the fact that having regard to the role attributed to each of the accused which had been noticed by the learned Magistrate, summons had been issued to only three of them and that as far as the Petitioner was concerned, the narration in the complaint showed that he was integral to all the transactions that had taken place between the complainant and the Accused No.1 as he was the constituted attorney of the said accused. The learned Single Judge also observed that whether the Petitioner had acted with dishonest intentions or as to whether he was unaware of the dishonest intentions of the Accused No.1 or that he himself held out no assurance as to the title of the Accused No.1 at the time the agreement for sale was executed or whether he acted beyond the scope of his authority under the power of attorney, were matters that raised triable issues and could only be determined by leading evidence at the trial.
Judgment: Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the complaint filed by the father of the Respondent, the Court was inclined to agree with the views expressed by the High Court that a prima facie case had been made out to go to trial. There was a positive assertion in the complaint that an assurance had been given by the Petitioner to the complainant that the property in question was free from all encumbrances and that the Accused No.1 was the sole owner of the property. It was mentioned in the complaint that had not such a representation been made relating to the status of ownership of the property in question, the complainant may not have entered into the transaction at all. Whether or not the Petitioner was truly mistaken with regard to the information given by him was a question of utmost importance in answering a charge of the nature indicated in the complaint. Merely because the Petitioner had received part payment of the consideration amount and had made over the same to the Accused No.1 and merely because possession of the land had been handed over by him to the complainant, cannot form the basis of a presumption that he had no knowledge that there was a dispute regarding the ownership of the property, as to whether the same belongs to a HUF or not. Section 415 IPC clearly indicates that if at the very initiation of the negotiations it was evident that there was no intention to cheat, the dispute would be of a civil nature. But such a conclusion would depend on the evidence to be led at the time of trial. In the instant case, the complaint did not make out a prima facie case to go to trial. The Petitioner may have discharged his functions as a constituted attorney for the Accused No.1 by acting as a liaison between the Accused No.1 and the father of the Respondent, but that did not in itself indicate that he did not have any knowledge of the status of ownership of the land forming the subject matter of the transaction.
Decision: Therefore, the court did not interfere with the order of the High Court impugned in the Special Leave Petition and the same was dismissed.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS