REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1284            OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.6598 of 2008)

Ramesh Dutt & Ors. … Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment  

and order dated 27.05.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High  

Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  Criminal  Miscellaneous  

No.12308 of 2001 whereby and whereunder an application filed by them  

purported to be under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for  

quashing a First Information Report lodged at the direction of Respondent

No.4 by the respondent No.2 on 23.3.2001 for the alleged commission of  

offences punishable under Sections 420/465/467/468/471 and 120B of the  

Indian Penal Code has been dismissed.

3. The basic  fact  of  the  matter  is  not  in  dispute.   The appellants  are  

members of the Managing Committee of Shastri Memorial School, Shivaji  

Nagar,  Ludhiana.   The  said  society  is  registered  under  the  Societies  

Registration Act in the year 1982.

4. Allegedly, the land in question was said to have been transferred to  

one Kahla Singh by the Tehsildar in the year 1977-78.  He filed a suit being  

Civil  suit  No.309  against  his  daughter-in-law  wherein  a  decree  

acknowledging a transfer in favour of the latter was passed.  The appellants  

are said to have made a representation  before the concerned authority  in  

relation to the functioning of the school after passing of the aforementioned  

decree came to their knowledge.  It is stated that a report dated 14.1.1983  

was submitted by the then Tehsildar (Sales), Ludhiana showing the school to  

be an existing one whereafter the name of the appellants had been recorded  

in the record of rights.   

They filed a suit in the year 1990 praying for a decree for possession.  

By reason of a judgment dated 15.3.1990, the said suit was decreed.  In the  

2

said  suit,  State  of  Punjab,  Collector  Ludhiana  as  well  as  the  said  Kahla  

Singh were arrayed as defendants.   

5. An order  of  mutation  was thereafter  passed  in  their  favour  which,  

however,  is  said  to  have  been  cancelled.   Indisputably,  a  proposal  was  

moved for lodging of a First Information Report.   

6. Appellants  sold  a  part  of  the  land  to  M/s  Everest  Girls  School.  

Allegedly sale proceeds therefrom had been spent on construction of sixteen  

rooms in the existing school.  The vendees of the said premises, i.e., the M/s.  

Everest  School  were  threatened  with  dispossession  by  the  supporters  of  

respondent Nos.3 and 5.  A newspaper report to that effect also appeared in  

‘Punjab Kesri’.  They filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge, Ludhiana  

wherein an order of status-quo was passed in the following terms :

“In  the meantime  defendants  are restrained from  interfering  in  possession  of  the  plaintiffs  in  property  comprised  in  Khasra  No.12/9  khata  No.23/1571 as per Jamabandi for the years 1992- 93,  situated  at  Village  Saidan,  Shivaji  Nagar,  Ludhiana  and  further  restraining  the  defendants  from interfering in the construction being raised by  the  plaintiffs  except  in  due  course  of  Law  till  21.12.1999.”

7. It appears that in a meeting held on 24.6.1999, the third respondent  

raised  a  question  with  regard  to  the  purported  illegal  transfer  by  the  

3

appellants before the District Grievance Committee.  However, it was stated  

that he had obtained the legal opinion that no offence is made out.   The  

resolution adopted in the said meeting dated 24.6.1999 reads as under:

“Item  No.15  Sh.  Sat  Pal  Gausain,  M.L.A.  submitted  an  application  from  the  residents  of  Shivaji  Nagar,  Ludhiana  regarding  property  No.918/4  which  is  alleged  to  be  under  unauthorized possession of some persons.  S.S.P.  informed that  about  a  year  prior  to  it  Managing  Committee of Shastri Memorial Model School sold  the  land  for  a  sum  of  Rs.9.85  lacs  to  Everest  School.  The allegation in the application is that a  property has two different members.   As per the  record,  land  purchased  by  the  Managing  Committee Shastri  Memorial Model School, bears  No.3849.  After the investigation legal opinion has  opined that no offence is made out.  This matter is  between the members of the Managing Committee  of the school and there is no action required on the  part of the police.

The  matter  may  be  re-investigated  after  summoning both the  parties  and complete  report  be submitted in the case made.”

8. The appellants also filed an application before the respondent No.4 on  

18.9.2000  stating  their  bona  fide  in  the  matter  besides  pointing  out  the  

interest of the students of the school.  The Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana  

issued notice to the school assessing the house tax.  House Tax is being paid  

by the appellants.

4

9. In the suit filed by the Everest School, applications were filed by the  

supporters  of  respondent  Nos.3  and 5 for  their  impleadment  which were  

dismissed.   

However, in a meeting dated 11.9.2000, again a resolution was moved  

wherein a decision was taken to lodge a First Information Report against the  

appellants in the following terms :

“The  Commissioner  Municipal  Corporation,  Ludhiana informed on the application submitted by  Sat  Pal  Gausain  MLA  on  behalf  of  certain  residents  of  Shastri  Nagar,  Ludhiana  regarding  illegal  possession  of  some  persons  on  property  No.918/4  that  the  land  being  ownership  of  Rehabilitation  Department  no  amount  on  the  construction can be spent.   

The President ordered that accused who exchanged  the  area,  an  FIR be  registered  against  them and  necessary  correspondence  be  made  between  Commissioner,  Municipal  Corporation  Ludhiana  and the item was deleted from the agenda.”

10. Pursuant to the said resolution, a First Information Report was lodged,  

relevant portions whereof reads as under :

“From the above, it is clear that the civil court has  ordered  for  the  possession  by  holding  that  applicant committee is registered which is running  School;  their  possession  will  not  be  taken.  Meaning  thereby  that  order  of  the  Court  was  regarding  possession.   Whereas  the  revenue  officials vide mutation No.38144 has changed the  

5

ownership  of  the  above  property  in  favour  of  Shastri  Memorial  Middle  School  Committee  registered which has been ordered as disputed by  the  District  Collector,  Ludhiana  vide  his  order  dated 15.9.1999 and in compliance with that order,  the revenue officer has cancelled the mutation.  It  is  worth  mentioning  here  that  Managing  Committee  of  the  above  school  by  selling  the  property got the mutation changed and same has  been cancelled after the sanction of the mutation  No.38144.  This land was sold to Pankaj Sharma  S/o  Rajinder  Kumar  of  Everest  Educational  Society  and  its  President  was  Rajinder  Kumar  Sharma and the land after sale was mutated vide  mutation  No.40762 (0-2-00-300 Sq.  Yds),  40763  (0-1-17-275  Sq.yds)  40064  (0-2-13  400  Sq.yds)  because  of  cancellation  of  muatation  No.38144  their sansity has also come in.  Now, ownership of  this land vests in the Central Govt.  Your attention  is invited to letter No.906/IPC dated 11.5.2000 and  the  report  that  now  the  Central  Govt.  has  been  shown as owner of this land.  Sh. Jaspal Singh, the  then  Halqa  Patwari  and  Circle  revenue  officer  Jagdeep Singh are guilty as in order to usurp the  Govt.  land,  with  dishonest  attention  in  order  to  give  undue  benefit  to  the  members  of  the  Managing  Committee  of  the  School,  have  sanctioned  mutation  against  orders  of  the  Court.  Similarly,  these  members  of  the  Managing  Committee of the School who in connivance with  the revenue officers, have got the land transferred  in favour of the School and have further sold it to  Sh. Pankaj Sharma of Everest Educational Society  have cheated the Govt. when they were not lawful  owners  of  the  land.   In  view of  decision  of  the  Grievance  Committee  in  its  meeting  dated  11.9.2000 all the above said accused are liable for  cheating  including  the  members  of  the  above  Society and along with predecessor.  A case under  above said sections be registered and legal action  be taken.  In this connection opinion of the District  

6

Attorney, Ludhiana has been obtained and he has  opined  that  case  under  Sections  420/465/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B IPC  can be registered.  You are hereby informed that  keeping  in  view  order  of  District  Grievance  Committee meeting held on 11.9.2000, necessary  case  be  registered  against  above  said  accused  persons and this office may be informed about the  action taken therein.”

11. The appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of  

Criminal  Procedure  praying  for  quashing  of  the  said  First  Information  

Report which by reason of the impugned order has been dismissed.

12. Mr. D.K. Bhatti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,  

would contend:

(i) The High Court committed a serious error in so far as it failed to take  

into  consideration  that  the  admitted  events  would  clearly  and  

unequivocally show that the First Information Report lodged by the  

respondents  was  an  act  of  mala  fide  on  their  part  and  based  on  

political consideration.   

(ii) Appellants  having  obtained  a  decree  in  their  favour,  a  criminal  

proceeding would not be maintainable.   

(iii) The contents of the first information report, even if given face value  

and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not disclose an offence  

7

cognizable  far  less  under  Sections  420/465/467/468/471  read  with  

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code..

13. Mr.  Anil  Grover,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

respondent, on the other hand, urged:

(i) The  appellants  having  obtained  a  decree  for  permanent  injunction  

although they have no title in or over the property in question, could  

not have transferred a portion thereof to M/s. Everest School.   

(ii) In view of an attempt on the part of the appellants to get their names  

mutated in the Revenue Records with the connivance of the Revenue  

Authorities, the High Court must be held to be correct in declining to  

exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of  

Criminal Procedure.   

(iii) In view of the decisions of this Court laying down the law that the  

first information report can be quashed only on limited grounds as for  

example in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.  

1 SCC 335], it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its  

jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

14. Indisputably,  the  appellants,  as  members  of  the  society,  have  been  

running a school on the plot in question.  They have obtained a decree in  

8

their favour.  The decree had not only been passed against the State but also  

against the Collector and Shri Kahla Singh who had claimed his right, title  

and interest in or over the said property.   

Before us, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein it  

has, inter alia, been stated that the title in respect of the lands in question are  

with the Central Government.   

The fact that respondents herein, acting in their official capacity, are  

bound by the said decree is not in dispute.

15. Title in or over an immoveable property has many facets.  Possession  

is  one  of  them.   Unless  there  exists  a  statutory  interdict,  a  person  in  

possession may transfer his right, title and interest in favour of a third party.  

[See Vinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra [(2009) 2 SCC 532]

16. Mr. Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent,  

may not be correct in contending that only because the order of mutation  

made in favour of the appellants had been cancelled, the same ipso facto  

would lead to the conclusion that they have no title over the property.  It is  

now a well settled principle of law that entry in a Revenue Record of rights  

merely is an evidence of possession. [See Faqruddin (Dead) through LRs. v.  

Tajuddin (Dead) through LRs. [(2008) 8 SCC 12].   

9

17. Such  an  entry  does  not  create  title;  absence  thereof  does  not  

extinguish the same.  Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the appellants  

had committed acts of criminal misconduct while trying to obtain orders of  

mutation but it is another thing to say that only because they filed such an  

application,  the  same  by  itself  would  tantamount  to  commission  of  a  

criminal offence.  In the facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion,  

only because appellants are said to have transferred a portion of the property  

without having complete ownership over them by itself do not satisfy the  

ingredients  of  Sections  467,  468 and  469.   This  aspect  of  the  matter  is  

covered by a recent decision of this Court in  Devendra & Ors. v.  State of  

U.P. & Anr. [2007 (9) SCC 613].  

18. We, however, make it clear that we do not intend to lay down a law  

that the judgment of the Civil Court would be binding on a criminal court in  

view of several decisions of this Court.   

In  Seth Ramdayal Jat v.  Laxmi Prasad [2009 (5) SCALE 527], this  

Court, while referring to a large number of decisions, held as under:

“18. It is now almost well-settled that, save and  except for Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act  which refers to Sections 40, 41, and 42 thereof, a  judgment  of  a  criminal  court  shall  not  be  admissible in a civil court.”

10

The provisions of Section 41 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act do not  

suggest  that  the  decision  of  the  Civil  Court  would  be  binding  on  the  

Criminal Courts.  Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, reads as under :

“44. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment,  or  incompetency  of  Court,  may  be  proved.—  Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show  that  any  judgment,  order  or  decree  which  is  relevant under sections 40, 41 or 42 and which has  been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by  a  Court  not  competent  to  deliver  it,  or  was  obtained by fraud or collusion.”

The institution of a criminal case must be held to be an act of mala  

fide on the part of the respondents in the aforementioned backdrop of events  

which stand admitted.  This case, therefore, satisfies some of the parameters  

laid down in several sub-paras of paragraph 105 of Bhajan Lal (supra) which  

read as under:

“105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the  various  relevant  provisions  of  the  Code  under  Chapter  XIV  and  of  the  principles  of  law  enunciated by this  Court in a series of  decisions  relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power  under  Article  226 or  the  inherent  powers  Under  Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted  and  reproduced  above,  we  give  the  following  categories of cases by way of illustration wherein  such power  could be  exercised  either  to  prevent  abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to  

11

secure the ends of  justice,  though it  may not  be  possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined  and  sufficiently  channelised  and  inflexible  guidelines  or  rigid  formulae  and  to  give  an  exhaustive list  of  myriad kinds of  cases wherein  such power should be exercised.

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.

xxx xxx xxx

3. Where the uncontroverted 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.

xxx xxx xxx

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.

xxx xxx xxx

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.”

19. For the reasons aforementioned,  the  impugned judgment cannot  be  

sustained.   It  is  set  aside  accordingly.   Appeal  is  allowed.   This  Order,  

12

however, may not be construed to be a judgment in respect of the right, title  

and interest over the property in question.

……………………….J.  [S.B. Sinha]

`

……………………..…J.     [Deepak Verma]

New Delhi; July 21, 2009

13