State of M.P. vs Ramchand Kamra (since deceased)

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the charges and proceeding in criminal case No. 362/2011 on the grounds that petitioner No. 1 is a notary and petitioners No. 2 and 3 are only the signatories of the agreement dated 01.08.2008 executed by the wife and daughter-in-laws of respondent No. 2 / Ramchand Asnani (complainant) with Ashok / co-accused of criminal case

No. 362/2011.

Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the grounds for the petition. According to him, the facts raised by the petitioners in the instant application can be adjudicated by recording of evidence because there is mixed question of law and facts.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record and having perused the averments contained in the report.

After perusal of record, it is found that the FIR under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code has been registered against Ashok Kumar Ahuja and the petitioners by respondent No. 2. It is stated by respondent No. 2 that Ashok had sent a notice with regard to execution of agreement wherein it was stated that the wife and daughter-in-laws of respondents

No. 2 had agreed to built a house for Ashok on Nazul Plot No. 3489/11 adjoining Hotel Chandralok admeasuring 4200 sq. ft. for Rs. 51 lakhs. It was also stated that Rs. 40 lakhs was already paid by Ashok to the wife and daughter-in-laws of respondent

No. 2. On the contrary, it is alleged that wife and daughter-in-laws of respondent No. 2 have not executed any agreement in favour of Ashok nor they have signed on it. Forged sale agreement has been prepared by Ashok. Petitioner No. 1 is a notary and other petitioners were witnesses in the aforesaid agreement dated 01.08.2008. The allegations appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith predominantly give rise and constituted a "civil wrong" with no "element of criminality" and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence. Even in such cases, the Court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence. In paragraph 7 of the written submission (Annexure 5) filed by the wife and daughter-in-laws of the respondent No. 2, it is clearly admitted by them the agreement has been signed by the wife and daughter-in-laws of respondent No. 2 under the faith of respondent No. 2. They also admitted that in stamp-papers some receiving of money have been recorded.

In the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, Janki Devi (wife of respondent No. 2) and her daughter-in-laws Rinki Asnani and Varsha Asnani specifically denied their signature on the disputed agreement. These are contrary statements given by them. It is also important to note that with regard to their forged signatures on the disputed agreement till now no opinion has been given by the handwriting expert in support of respondent No. 2. No evidence has been recorded before trial Court till now.

All the above facts indicate that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners. Civil suit is already pending between respondent No. 2 and Ashok Kumar Ahuja.

The said agreement cannot be presumed to be forged merely on the ground of allegation made by opposite party. The dispute is purely covered by civil laws. The proceeding against the petitioners is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure as it is a misuse of the process of law.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Binod Kumar &

Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2014) 10 SCC 663) , has held that the civil liability cannot be converted to criminal liability.

This is abuse of process of Court. It has further held as under :

"Referring to the growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases, in paragraphs (13) and (14) of the Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd . [(2006) 6 SCC 736] case, it was held as under:- ''13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any 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. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 this Court observed: 8. ........It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.''"

Keeping in view the facts of the case and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed.

The charge-sheet and proceeding in criminal case No. 362/2011 so far it relates to the petitioners, pending before the District and Sessions Court, Rewa is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.