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.