Spread the love

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin  Amanullah held in this appropriate case, “protection is to be accorded against  unwanted criminal prosecution and from the prospect of unnecessary trial”. 

The court summarized the dispute between the landowners/principals inter-se or  between them and the PoA(Power of Attorney)-holder. The court believes it would  be inappropriate to include the appellant in criminal proceedings given that he was  not involved in the PoA- holder’s misdeeds against the landowners or principals or  in the prosecution of the PoA. 

Senior Advocates Siddhartha Dave and Maninder Singh represented the State and  the appellant, respectively. 

Man Vijay Singh accused Raj Kumar Karan Vijay Singh of using a PoA to  illegally sell family property. A legal notice to revoke the PoA was sent, but it  received no response. Following that, a criminal complaint was filed, with  accusations of misusing PoA, stealing property, and completing a fake Sale Deed.  Charges under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,  1860 resulted from the police’s final report. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took  cognizance. The motion to quash the FIR at the Dumraon Police Station in Buxar,  Bihar.The High Court’s decision to reject the motion to quash the FIR was upheld  by the Court in response to an appeal. 

The appellant argued that they are just the vendee of a piece of land that was  covered by the PoA. Regarding the terms, which were clearly binding between the  parties, it was argued that it was an internal matter between the  landowners/executors of the aforementioned PoA. The PoA’s provisions,  particularly Clause 3, were brought to the Court’s notice by knowledgeable senior  counsel, who also argued that the PoA-holder was right to execute any kind of  deed and to be given consideration on behalf of the PoA’s landowners and  executors as well as to have it registered. Regarding the civil nature of the case, it  was argued that the Revisional Court correctly determined that it was a civil  dispute because the matter included interpreting numerous PoA clauses, which 

cannot be done in a criminal procedure. The fact that the Buxar Courts would not  have territorial jurisdiction was also brought up. 

It was also argued that the PoA was valid at the time of the sale and that the PoA holder had complete authority to sell the property, register the Sale Deed, and  obtain payment under Clauses 3 and 11 read in conjunction with Clause 5. He  argued that the complaint had not properly relied on Clause 15, which was not  applicable. 

The court determined that there was a case for intervention. The PoA was signed  by the landowners/principals in favour of the individual from whom the appellant  bought the land, which is an undisputed and admitted fact. Additionally, it is a fact  that the PoA-holder completed a Sale Deed in the appellant’s favour and had it  registered in Dehradun. A lot of discussion was focused on interpreting the various  PoA provisions—namely, clauses 3, 11, and 15. 

The reference taken by the court is traceable to Forbes v Git, [1922] 1 AC 256 and  Radha Sundar Dutta v Mohd. Jahadur Rahim, AIR 1959 SC 24. 

The court further added that this matter of jurisdiction is restricted to the  transaction of the execution of the Sale Deed in the appellant’s favour and not to  any other disagreement or dispute that the principals/landowners may have,  whether it be with one another or the PoA holder. Additionally, a suit for the same  cause of action that the landowners/principals filed in Dehradun before the FIR  was filed was dismissed in the appellant’s favour, and a particular motion to annul  the Sale Deed was refused. 

The Court claimed it improper to involve the appellant in criminal litigation, as he  had no role in the PoA’s execution or any misconduct by the PoA-holder. The  entire consideration amount is paid by the appellant. 



Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *