Mukul Agrawal vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh
- SCC(2020) 3 SCC 402
- Neutral2020 INSC 161
- AIRAIR 2020 SC 1877
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a criminal complaint is founded on an allegation that a document is forged or fabricated, and a higher appellate court in concurrent civil proceedings has conclusively determined that the same document is genuine and not forged, the criminal proceedings based on the allegation of forgery are rendered devoid of foundation and constitute an abuse of the process of law; accordingly, such proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. An order passed by a court that is amenable to challenge in a superior court must be reasoned and speaking in order to enable meaningful understanding of the court's conclusions and to facilitate effective exercise of judicial review.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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 abruptly concludes to decline interference. The order does not 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
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free