Mukul Agrawal vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2020 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5261 of 2019)

MUKUL AGRAWAL AND OTHERS ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by order dated 21.05.2019

dismissing their application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. declining to

quash the entire proceedings against them in Complaint Case

No.2705/2003 filed by the respondent no.2 under Sections 420,

467, 468, 471, I.P.C.

3. The order of the High Court unfortunately only discusses the

principles for quashing laid down in judicial precedents and Signature Not Verified

abruptly concludes to decline interference. The order does not Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2020.02.10 15:44:15 IST Reason:

reflect any consideration of the facts, the materials and the reasons

1 why the High Court was not persuaded to entertain the application.

We are therefore deprived of the understanding for the reasons why

the High Court did not consider it a fit case for interference.

Needless to state, any order which is amenable to challenge in a

superior court, has to be reasoned and speaking to facilitate better

understanding of the order making judicial review an effective

exercise.

4. The respondent filed Original Suit No. 12 of 1996 stating that

he was a tenant in the disputed shop and was wrongly being asked

to vacate, declining to accept rent, seeking a permanent injunction

restraining the appellant from evicting him, disconnecting the

telephone and water connection etc. The appellant relied on an

agreement dated 30.03.1988 to submit that the respondent was

working in the disputed shop and that he was not a tenant.

5. Even while the suit was pending, the present complaint came

to be filed alleging that the agreement dated 30.03.1988 produced

by the appellant in the suit was a false and fabricated document

and that the respondent had never signed such an agreement. The

basis for the complaint was the opinion of the handwriting expert

submitted in the civil court.

2

6. The civil suit came to be decided on 13.05.2015 holding that

the signature of respondent no.2 on the agreement dated

30.03.1988 was forged and that it was a fabricated document.

7. The aggrieved appellant, preferred Civil Appeal No. 17/2015

which has been allowed setting aside the findings in the suit holding

that the agreement was not a false and fabricated document.

8. In view of the conclusive opinion of the appellate court that the

agreement dated 30.03.1988 was not a forged document, the very

substratum of the criminal complaint vanishes. In the

circumstances to allow the appellants to be prosecuted will only be

a complete abuse of the process of law. The proceedings in

Complaint Case No. 2705/2003 are therefore quashed and the

appeal is allowed.

.……………………….J. (Navin Sinha)

………………………..J. (Krishna Murari) New Delhi, February 10, 2020.

3