M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And Ors

M. Narayandas                                                                      …. PETITIONER       

Versus

State Of Karnataka And Ors                                               …. RESPONDENTS

                               (Appeal (crl.)  1197 of 2003)

M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 19 September, 2003

• Appeal against order of High Court.
• Petitioner- M. NARAYANDAS
• Respondent- STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
• DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/09/2003
• Bench/ judges- S.N. VARIAVA & H.K. SEMA

• Statues contained- Constitution of India, Criminal Procedure Code,1973 and Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Judgement- appeal allowed
• Main work- property dispute, Quashing of Fir by High Court, forging of Documents.

Introduction

India is facing a large number of property cases and fights among family members that comes as a consequence. This is one such case, this case as per layman’s view would be seen as a property dispute case but it was more than that power of quashing of FIR by High Court was discussed here by Supreme court, while citing relevant judgements and precedents laid down.

This case was an appeal in 2003 to Supreme Court challenging order of High Court dated 26th August, 2002.

Particular case deals with the family members indulging in property transfer in the 80’s and case and petition going on till 2003.

FACTS OF CASE

• Appellant-  M. NARAYANDAS
• Respondent no. 1- STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Respondent no. 2- Son of Nirmala.

Respondent no.3- a daughter-in-law of Nirmala through a son who had passed away.

Respondent no. 4- Daughter of Nirmala.

• The appellant here is the owner of property namely survey no. 66 in Village Sarakki. In 1988, Feburary18th he entered into sale agreement with his sister, Nirmala. The agreement was for a specific portion that was 25,188 sq. ft out of his property mentioned above.
• Respondent side claimed it to be sale agreement and appellant claimed that he allowed his sister to reside as a licensee and not as permanent owner.
• Everything went on smoothly for a while than in 2000, September 7^th Respondent 2 to 4 filed for partition.
• Appellant contended that he got to know that the respondents were trying to acquire the above piece of land which he lent out as licensed on their own names through the way of partition and ill-will. Thus, he filed for Injunction (a judicial order restraining a person from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the legal right of another, or compelling a person to carry out a certain act, e.g. to make restitution to an injured party.) the injunction he claimed was restraining the change of names in the records of documents with the authorities.
• In reply Respondents filed an application in which they produced three documents of 1989 October 21^st.
• Document which was a affidavit of  sale cum possession receipts from 1989.
• General power of attorney. Transfer of power such as vakalatnama
• Affidavits purported to have been sworn by the Appellant.
• Appellant claimed those documents to be forged and never executed by him. Appellant therefore filed FIR under sections of Indian Penal Code.

1. 468, IPC- Forgery for purpose of cheating.
2. 470, IPC-Forged document or electronic record.
3. 471, IPC- Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.

Using document as it is not supposed to be is the crux of this section.

• 120-B, IPC- Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy.

• In reply to the FIR Respondent side filed a Petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 to quash the above FIR.
• The petition was allowed by the High Court and the FIR was Quashed; hence appellant filed this appeal in Supreme Court.
• High Court relied on the judgement pass in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992[1], the main crux that was discussed here was quashing of Fir and how and when it can be done. Main sections that were emphasized was 156,157 and 159 of the Indian Penal Code.
• 156 – Liability of agent of owner or occupier for whose benefit riot is committed.
• 157- Harbouring persons hired for an unlawful assembly
• 159- Affray

• Simplified it has been stated that the authorities and officers of Police can either proceed with the investigation or can either make an investigation to be caused if they have a reason to suspect or there’s suspicion that the crime committed which is cognizable in nature has sufficient grounds, if not satisfied with the above provisions he can pass out with investigation. Magistrate cannot interfere in the investigation as long as investigation runs within the code and compliance and magistrate can meddle only where police officer decides to not go on with the investigation.

Guidelines which have been laid down regarding the allowing of quashing of FIR are as follows:

1. When the allegation and content of Fir do not prime facie constitute offence or stand out a case against accused.
2. When there is absurdity than allegation and the conclusion is a far away thing. Grounds should be sufficient.

These, are some of the grounds laid down by the Court as to avoid arbitrary proceedings and quashing of FIR.

• When the offence is non-cognizable in nature (non-cognizable offences are those punishable with imprisonment of a term less than 3 years. In such cases it is not necessary for Police authorities that  before conducting search or arrests. Cognizable offence examples include rape, murder, theft, etc. Examples of non-cognizable offences can be many and range from forgery, cheating, defamation, etc) wgich harm reputation and life as well.

• When the evidence collected and allegation put forward do not justify the case and allegation against accused.
• Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence

The power to quash is exercised in rarest of the rare cases with extra care and caution. Otherwise, the police authorities would be liable and responsible for consequences arising out of their action. As a wrong action can lead to appeal and case going for a stretchy time and the person suffering without much cause especially when the criminal part is involved an innocent being accused as guilty and served jail till the time his counsel proves him innocent really goes against the notion of justice.

In the judgement High Court took into consideration both the sides and examined all the documents, signatures and therefore concluded that the signatures are not forged or fabricated as contented by the appellant. Based on photographs, documents and evidence and after being satisfied that the complaint is frivolous and untrue, High Court quashed the complaint and put cost of Rs.10,000 on the appellant. The fact that High Court relied on provided material without evidence. It was therefore admitted that the reasoning provided by the High Court in quashing the FIR and judgement was unsustainable. Question was whether the above laid down procedures of quashing the FIR has been followed well by the Court, whether section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code applied well or not, should the case be returned to high court for consideration.

Supreme Court while reviewing the appeal held that the law on point is clear and section 195 of Criminal procedure Code does not apply at time of investigation. Hence, it was decided that there was no ground to reason as such to which quashing if FIR could be contemplated.

And hence, the Supreme Court/Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the petition of quashing the FIR, appeal was allowed, cost of Rs. 10,000 was also removed and Fir was not quashed.

CONCLUSION:

Thus property dispute cases can be a menace for society and bring with them a lot of rules and regulation to be contemplated and modified, be it provisions of civil law or criminal law, cases like such aid in judicial interpretation and helps society become closer to the idea of perfection. Family feuds in India is not a new thing, large family leads to many small disputes which becomes a dispute enough one day to cause partition and separate the family. Therefore, such cases can be set as a predicament to avoid, handle and manage various issues arising out of family and in cases where actual crime takes place proper investigation should be done by the authorities beyond the doubt for resolvent of disputes and setting of principles. Be it Police, local Courts or High Court everyone plays a part in it and parties who are left standing on the guilty side should be punished severely and compensation to the harmed should be provided. Laws should be made understood able to the layman for their protection and well-being.

---

[1] 1992 AIR 604

written by Tanya Setia intern under legal vidhiya