Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 261 (UTT)

RAHUL SAHGAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-05-15

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) The applicant, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to set aside the impugned cognizance order dated 24.06.2008, passed by special judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun, in criminal case no. 1197 of 2008, state vs Sushma Sahgal and others, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and also to quash the chargesheet dated 04.02.2008, in case crime no. 31 of 2007 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 1197 of 2008, State vs Sushma Sahgal and others, pending in the selfsame Court. 2. An FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 against seven accused persons, including the applicant, on 27.04.2007, in police station Rajpur, Dehradun as regards offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B of IPC. The allegation against the accused persons in a nutshell was that they, in conspiracy with each other, prepared forged document in order to cause damage or harm to respondent no. 2. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, it was mentioned in the FIR itself that two civil suits were pending between the parties in which the subject matter was Smt. Pushpawati Sahgal Memorial Charitable Society. Respondent no. 2 instituted original suit no. 720 of 2005, Smt. Pushpawati Sahgal Memorial Charitable Society and others vs Rahul Sahgal and others. Another original suit bearing no. 94 of 2007 was instituted by Smt. Pushpawati Sahgal Memorial Charitable Society and others against Chetan Sahgal and others. 4. It was alleged in the FIR that respondent no. 2 was the Chairman of Smt. Pushpawati Sahgal Memorial Charitable Society, situated at 200/ 1, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. The said Society was formed by late N.L. Sahgal on 20.03.1993. This Society was registered with Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Dehradun. Respondent no. 2 was elected President of said Society by consensus on 15.08.2000. Accused no. 1 to 7 were the Members of the Society, accused no. 2 (applicant) was the Secretary and accused no. 3 was the Vice President of said Society. The responsibility to manage and run the Society vest with respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 used to convene the meeting of the Society from time to time. Since accused no. 1 to 7 remained absent in the meetings, therefore they were expelled from the Society. Accused no. 3 was the Vice President of said Society. The responsibility to manage and run the Society vest with respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 used to convene the meeting of the Society from time to time. Since accused no. 1 to 7 remained absent in the meetings, therefore they were expelled from the Society. Accused no. 1 to 7 thereafter conspired to forge some documents, which were signed by them, two civil suits in respect of which were pending before the courts. 5. In O.S. no. 94 of 2007, the prayer sought for in the plaint was for a decree for declaration, declaring the resolution dated 15.08.2000 and 20.08.2000 regarding appointment of defendant no. 1 as Chairman and defendant nos. 9 to 12 as Members, as illegal, void and without jurisdiction. Ancillary reliefs were also sought for by Smt. Pushpawati Sahgal Memorial Charitable Society and another against Chetan Sahgal and others. Likewise, in O.S. No. 720 of 2005, again instituted on behalf of Smt. Smt. Pushpawati Sahgal Memorial Charitable Society and another against Rahul Sahgal and others, the relief was sought for declaring that the defendant no. 1 (Rahul Sahgal) has no right to assume/act as Chairman of plaintiff no. 1 Society and any act done by him in such capacity be declared void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs. A prayer was also made for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants Rahul Sahgal and others from causing interference in the working of plaintiff Society. The defendants were also prayed to be restrained from transferring/creating third party rights over the property of plaintiff Society. 6. A description of the above two original suits, both pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun will indicate that the controversy in hand is of civil nature, which controversy is pending adjudication of the Civil Court. 7. In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 , it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is a growing tendency in business circles to convert the purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of prevalent presumption that civil law remedies are time consuming and did not adequately protect the interest of lenders/creditors. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal case, there is likelihood of imminent settlement. This is obviously on account of prevalent presumption that civil law remedies are time consuming and did not adequately protect the interest of lenders/creditors. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal case, there is likelihood of imminent settlement. An effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 8. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 that the following are some categories of cases, where the inherent jurisdiction could and should be exercised: i. Where there was a legal bar against the institution or continuance of proceedings; ii. Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint did not make out the offence alleged and; iii. Where either there was no legal evidence adduced in respect of the charge from the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly prove the charge. 9. Quashing of complaint or criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The scope of keeping powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of decisions including R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab (supra); State of U.P. vs. R.K. Srivastava (1989) 4 SCC 59 ; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Crl.) 4226; Roopan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; (1995) 6 SCC 194 and scores of other rulings. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), listed the following categories of cases where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order or a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order or a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” It was also made clear that it was not possible to lay down precise and inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula or to give an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which such power could be exercised.7 11. In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, it is inferred that this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the instant case, in as much as the FIR has civil flavour and the controversy is pending adjudication of the Civil Court. 12. The application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is thus allowed. Impugned cognizance order dated 24.06.2008, passed by special judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun, in criminal case no. 12. The application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is thus allowed. Impugned cognizance order dated 24.06.2008, passed by special judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun, in criminal case no. 1197 of 2008, state vs Sushma Sahgal and others, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B of IPC, as also the chargesheet dated 04.02.2008, in case crime no. 31 of 2007 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 1197 of 2008, State vs Sushma Sahgal and others, pending in the selfsame Court are hereby quashed.