Protection is to be accorded against unwanted criminal prosecution: SC quashes FIR against vendee in land dispute matter where criminal acts were allegedly committed by PoA holders
Justices Vikram Nath & Ahsanuddin Amanullah [31-01-2024]

Read Order: BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIA v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR [SC-CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 523 OF 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, February 2, 2024: In a land dispute case where the Power of Attorney holders had allegedly committed criminal acts, the Supreme Court has quashed the FIR against the appellant as he was merely a vendee of a portion of the land which was included in the PoA given to one of the accused persons and had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor any misdeed by the PoA- holder vis-à-vis the land-owners/principals.

The facts of the case which gave rise to the appeal were that the informant/respondent no.2 Maharaj Kumar Man Vijay Singh @ Man Vijay Singh gave a statement in writing to the Station House Officer, Dumraon Police Station alleging that one Raj Kumar Karan Vijay Singh had sold off property belonging to 5 persons of the informant’s family, including the informant himself. It was alleged that the informant and his family members had earlier given a Power of Attorney (PoA) to Raj Kumar in respect of and as owners of property. It was stated that the informant and his other family members executed a PoA for management and maintenance of their property.

It was provided therein that the PoA holder shall pursue litigation, file plaint after obtaining signature of the land owners/principals of the PoA. It was alleged that some portion of the property of the informant and others was sold to the present appellant and on such knowledge, the informant sent a Legal Notice to the PoA-holder directing him to give the details of the sale made in conspiracy with the appellant and a Notice was also given to revoke the PoA but the agent did not give any reply.

In this backdrop, a criminal case was instituted. It was alleged that criminal acts were committed by the accused, including the appellant, by misusing the PoA,. It was alleged that they had misappropriated the property, did not rendition the accounts and the Sale Deed was fraudulent as it was without obtaining the signatures of the land-owners/Principals of the PoA-holder. Upon investigation, the police submitted final report finding a case under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420, IPC and the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on 18.11.2014.

During the pendency of Criminal Miscellaneous petition on the file of the High Court, originally filed for quashing the FIR, the appellant filed Interlocutory Application seeking amendment of the prayer to include quashing of the order dated 18.11.2014. The appeal before the Top Court arose out of the Final Judgment passed by the Patna High Court by which the prayer for quashing of FIR had been dismissed. The appellant had approached the Top Court assailing this Final Judgment.

At the outset, the Division Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, observed that a case for interference had been made out. “Thus, the Court is required to interpret harmoniously as also logically the effect of a combined reading of the afore-extracted clauses. As such, our endeavour would, in the first instance, necessarily require us to render all three effective and none otiose. In order to do so, this Court would test as to whether all the three clauses can independently be given effect to and still not be in conflict with the other clauses”, the Bench stated.

After extensively going through the PoA, the Bench opined that Clauses 3 and 11 together authorized the PoA-holder to execute deeds, including of/for sale, receive consideration in this regard and proceed to registration upon accepting consideration on behalf of the land-owners/principals. It was also opined that Clause 15 which states that the PoA-holder was authorized to present for registration the sale deeds or other documents signed by the land-owners/principals and admit execution thereof, was in addition to Clauses 3 and 11 of the PoA and not in derogation thereof.

Finding no contradiction between Clauses 3, 11 and 15 of the PoA, the Bench restated that Clause 15 of the PoA is an additional provision retaining authority for sale with the land-owners/principals themselves and the process whereof would also entail presentation for registration and admission of its execution.As per the Bench, all three clauses are capable of being construed in such a manner that they operate in their own fields and are not rendered nugatory.

The matter at hand related to a dispute among the co-sharers as the PoA-holder is the son of one of the co-sharers/principals. “The PoA and its execution/registration not being in dispute, the only controversy relating to the Sale Deed executed by the PoA-holder in favour of the appellant in Dehradun for property located at Dehradun would thus, in the emerging factual matrix, clearly be an issue for the Courts at Dehradun to examine, much less give rise to any cause of action at Buxar”, the Bench held.

According to the Bench, the issue of jurisdiction was limited to the transaction of the execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the appellant, and not to any other controversy or dispute the land- owners/principals may have, either inter-se or against the PoA-holder. Moreover, it was noticed that a suit filed by the land-owners/principals at Dehradun prior to the lodging of the FIR, for the same cause of action, had been dismissed in favour of the appellant, where a specific plea to cancel the Sale Deed stood rejected.

“In sum, the dispute, if any, is between the land-owners/principals inter-se and/or between them and the PoA-holder. We think it would be improper to drag the appellant into criminal litigation, when he had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor any misdeed by the PoA- holder vis-à-vis the land-owners/principals. Moreover, the entire consideration amount has been paid by the appellant to the PoA-holder”, the Bench asserted.

Thus, quashing the FIR and referring to the judgments in Priyanka Mishra v State of Madhya Pradesh and Vishnu Kumar Shukla v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Bench observed, “This Court has held that in the appropriate case, protection is to be accorded against unwanted criminal prosecution and from the prospect of unnecessary trial…”

Allowing the appeal, the Bench inserted the caveat that the Trial Court will act in accordance with law.