Brief Facts
- The Complainant was appointed as Government teacher on 08.10.2007, prior to which the Complainant was doing real estate business for last 16 years. The Complainant filed the complaint before the Magistrate Court against the accused persons/Appellants alleging the commission of offence under section 420, 120-B, 294(b) and section 506(ii) of the IPC.
- It was alleged in the Complaint that accused persons influenced the complainant to make investments into lands assuring that he would reap huge benefits out of these deals. The complainant was also fraudulently induced to believe that out of the chunks of lands so purchased, smaller plots would be carved out and sold to different persons which would frequently require physical presence of the seller and since the complainant was a teacher, he would face inconvenience if the land parcels were to be registered in his name. In this manner, the complainant was not allowed to get the purchased properties registered in his name despite he making the investments.
- Having given the fraudulent allurements to the complainant, the accused got registered a sale deed in their name before the Sub Registrar Office, in respect of some plots of land situated in the Allampatti village of total area 7.618 acres. The complainant invested a sum of Rs. 1,01,47,800/- towards this transaction whereas, the accused invested proportionately much lesser amounts in the said land deal. However, as per the complainant, the accused never gave him the plots equivalent to the investment made by him and thereby, committed fraud and breach of trust.
- To resolve the dispute, a Panchayat meeting was convened and a settlement deed was also executed. The complainant alleged that the accused persons despite being signatories to the settlement deed did not act as promised under the settlement and thereby, committed breach of trust.
- Under the direction of the learned Magistrate, the complaint was forwarded to Police Station, where FIR came to be registered. After investigation, the Investigating Agency, proceeded to file a charge sheet against eight accused with the following conclusions
- It may be mentioned that for the very same set of allegations, the complainant had also filed a civil suit by impleading A-1 to A-6 as defendants which is pending on the file of District Judge, Tuticorin.
- A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, and A-8 being the appellants herein, approached the High Court, for assailing the FIR and the charge sheet. The learned Single Judge of Madras High Court proceeded to dismiss the said petition preferred by the appellants.
- Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant has approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibitions) Act bars the civil proceedings in respect to the property declared as Benami and whether the Complainant could not have initiated any civil proceedings against the Appellants in light of bar under section 4 of the Act?
- During the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings, whether court should consider that the necessary ingredients of offences punishable under section 406 and 420 IPC were made out or not?
- Since the Complainant was a government servant, whether there was a prima facie case for commission of offence under section 13(1)(a) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Held
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the order passed by the High Court and the proceedings in pursuance of the charge sheet were quashed.
- Court concluded that the criminal prosecution instituted against the accused appellants in pursuance of the totally frivolous FIR tantamount to sheer abuse of the process of law. The Court however held that there is no justifiable cause as to direct the enquiry against the Complainant for the offence under section PC Act as the Complainant has produced sufficient sources of income in respect to the investment made in the disputed land deals. The findings of the court are as under:
Section 4 of the Benami Act bars civil proceedings
- It is, thus, clear that the complainant in spite of having made investments in the land deals which were evidently benami transactions, could not have instituted any civil proceedings for recovery against the person(s) in whose name, the properties were held which would be the accused appellants herein. Since by virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Benami Act, the complainant is prohibited from suing the accused for a civil wrong, in relation to these benami transactions, as a corollary, allowing criminal prosecution of the accused in relation to the self-same cause of action would be impermissible in law.
Allegations are primarily civil disputes
- It is thus clear that from the complaint, there is no such allegation therein which can persuade the Court to hold that the intention of the accused appellants was to defraud the complainant right from the inception of the transactions. The accused appellants have unquestionably, passed on some plots as well as part profits from the land deals to the complainant but the dispute is regarding the quantification of profits and full satisfaction of the share claimed by the complainant proportional to the investments made by him.
- Thus, Court is of the firm view that the necessary ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 406 and Section 420 IPC are not made out against the accused appellants from the admitted allegations set out in the complaint and the charge sheet. It cannot be doubted that a dispute which is purely civil in nature has been given a colour of criminal prosecution alleging fraud and criminal breach of trust by misusing the tool of criminal law.
No prima facie offence made out under section 506 and 294
- The Investigating Officer has also applied offences under Section 294(b) and Section 506(ii) read with Section 114 IPC in the charge On going through the entire charge sheet, court do not find any such material therein which can justify invocation of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC.
- The complainant alleged that the accused abused him by using profane language. Section 294(b) IPC would clearly not apply to such an act. Apart from a bald allegation made by the complainant that A-1 abused him and intimidated him, there is no material which can show that the accused indulged in criminal intimidation of the complainant so as to justify invocation of the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC.
- The complainant has tried to misuse the tool of criminal law by filing the patently frivolous FIR, wherein the allegation is levelled regarding the so-called incident of criminal intimidation.
Relevant Para No.
- 26,27,29,30,36,38,42 and 48