Challenge against the quash order
2. These appeal(s) call into question the correctness of a common judgment and order dated 24th March 2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in W.P(s)(Crl.)Nos. 02 of 2021 and 47 of 2021, by which the High Court quashed Giridih(T)P.S.Case No.217 of 2020 @ FIR No.04797769 dated 5th November, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 , pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.
Brief Background
3. One Purushotam Kumar (A-1) forged a Power of Attorney2 on the basis of which transfer of certain land in favour of Bikash Kumar Singh, S/o Surendra Singh (A-2), Surendra Singh (A-3) with the latter witnessing the sale transaction stood registered with the Registrar having competent jurisdiction at a place known as Giridih. The original owner Naveen Kumar Rai, having learnt of such an illegal transaction instituted proceedings before a Civil Court seeking a declaration of the transaction to be null and void. Independently, the District Deputy Registrar, Giridih initiated an inquiry in terms of Circular No.15/R(Miscellaneous)Public Applications-04/163 dated Nil resulting in the passing of an order, prima facie holding A-1 to have forged the PoA impersonating Naveen Kumar Rai, leading to the execution of a sale deed which document also stood registered with the very same Authority. Resultantly, on the basis of such an inquiry both the documents i.e., the PoA and the sale deed stood cancelled. Further, on the basis of the communication dated 15th October, 2020 that of the District Deputy Registrar, Giridih, FIR bearing the above-noted particulars stood registered by Sahdeo Mehra, against seven accused persons including A-1, A-2 and A-3.
Analysing the order
6. In our considered view, the premise on which the Court proceeded in quashing the FIR is on the wrong assumption, interpretation, and application of the law.
10. It is not in dispute that the communication dated 15th October, 2020 resulting in registration of the FIR was that of a competent authority i.e., the Sub-Registrar of the concerned district. In any event, such a power is the result of an action only in reference to and in connection with the Act and not the general provisions of IPC in relation to other penal provisions for which the FIR actually stood registered.
How to consider and analyse the quash petition – Explained
11. Given that the FIR against which the petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure4 had been preferred were offences contained only in the IPC, what the Court was required to consider was whether any of the well-established grounds that are enumerated in judgments of this Court viz., State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335]; Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra [2021 SCC OnLine 315] and reiterated in Peethambaran v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC OnLine 553], were made out or not. We find the High Court to have referred to the detailed discussion in Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr [(2017) 13 SCC 369] . but, however, discussion is conspicuously absent as to how the aspect of “criminality” is not present. It is all too well settled that while exercising such inherent powers what is required to be examined is only the prima facie existence of the offence sought to be quashed. For the offence of cheating, for instance, this Court has enumerated certain factors to be considered in Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal [(2022) 7 SCC 124].
Prosecution may be lodged by or with the permission of the Sub-Registrar
12. The Court’s observation that because there is no order of the Inspector General, “in spite of that this FIR has been lodged by the District Sub-Registrar, Giridih, which is against Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908” as demonstrated (supra) is completely divorced from the text of the Section itself, for, it provides, as reproduced above, that a prosecution may be lodged by or with the permission of the Sub-Registrar in whose territory the offence has been committed
Case restored
13. It is for both the above reasons that the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the attending facts and circumstances, was unjustified and entirely unsustainable. The FIR and the consequent case, quashed vide the impugned judgment stand restored to the file of the concerned district Court. All consequential steps may follow including the Trial Court commencing proceedings as per law. The appellant is directed to appear before the Court on 01.03.2024 at 10.00 a.m. Once such presence is registered with the Court and the proceedings begin, we direct the trial to be expedited and, if not inconvenient and otherwise, possibly conduct the same on a day-to-day basis, minimizing adjournments so as to ensure that the proceedings are taken to the lawful conclusion at the earliest.
Party
NAVIN KUMAR RAI … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SURENDRA SINGH AND ORS. ETC. … RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 890-891 OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(Crl.)Nos.5531-32 of 2022) – 2024 INSC 116 – February 14, 2024
