Uma Maheswari vs The State

2025 INSC 1494 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 11715/2024)

UMA MAHESWARI & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE & ANR. ....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2023

passed in Criminal O.P. No. 24649 of 2023 by the Madras

High Court, the appellants are before this Court. By the

said order, their application filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”)

has been dismissed.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the

prosecution are that one Vasanthi, sister of respondent

No.2/complainant, availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Lakhs

only (Rs. 20,00,000/-) from appellant No.2/accused No.5. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU SACHDEVA As security for the said loan, Vasanthi had executed a Date: 2025.12.23 15:35:10 IST Reason:

Power of Attorney in favour of the appellant

1 No.2/accused No.5 in respect of the property bearing

R.S. No. 153/1/1, Cad No. 356, Patta No. 1023 (Plot No.

12) to an extent of 1980 sq ft. situate at Villanur

Revenue Village (No.32) (‘suit property’).

4. By way of the said Power of Attorney, it is

alleged that appellant No.1/accused No.4 fraudulently

executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in

favour of his wife who, in the present case, is

appellant No.1/accused No.4. Appellant No.1/accused

No.4 subsequently sold the suit property to accused No.2

(Devaki) for a consideration of Rupees Twenty Lakhs only

(Rs. 20,00,000/-). It is alleged that on the date of the

execution of the sale deed in favour of accused No.2,

i.e., 16.09.2013, the accused persons, in furtherance of

a common intention to dishonestly grab the suit property

owned by Vasanthi, threatened her as well as her sons

with their life.

5. Later, on 19.09.2013, respondent No.2/complainant

filed a missing complaint before the Inspector of

Police, P.S. Villianur, Puducherry, alleging that his

sister/Vasanthi and her three sons had been missing

since 18.09.2013. On the basis of the aforesaid

complaint, FIR bearing No. 192/2013 was registered with

P.S. Villianur, Puducherry for “Men Missing”. Upon

2 investigation, Vasanthi and her family were found at the

residence of one Nagar Pillai. Subsequently, based on

the statements of Vasanthi and her family, the charging

sections in FIR No. 192/2013 were altered from “Men

Missing” to Sections 405, 420, 386, 506 (part 2) read

with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon completion of the

investigation, chargesheet bearing No. 164/2015 was

filed against five accused persons, including the

appellants(s) herein, under Sections 405, 421, 386, 506

(part 2) read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the

IPC.

6. Being Aggrieved, accused Nos. 1 and 2 preferred a

petition bearing Crl. O.P. No. 148/2020 before the High

Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in

C.C. No. 233/2018 pending on the file of Judicial

Magistrate No. III, Puducherry.

7. By order dated 05.08.2022, the High Court allowed

Crl. O.P. No. 148/2020 and quashed the proceedings as

against accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that

respondent No.2/complainant had preferred a complaint

against accused Nos. 1 and 2 with an ulterior motive. It

was further noted that the said accused persons had

purchased the suit property from appellant No.1/accused

No.4 and there was no material on record to prove that

3 accused No.1 and 2 were in any way involved in the

alleged offences. High Court also took note of the fact

that respondent No.2/complainant himself had affixed the

signature of the witness to the sale deed executed by

appellant no.1/accused No.4 in favour of accused No.2.

Moreover, in light of the frequent alteration reports

which were found to be contradictory and the fact that

respondent No.2/complainant did not appear to contest

the said quashing petition, High Court was inclined to

quash the criminal proceedings pending against accused

Nos.1 and 2.

8. Subsequently, the appellant(s) herein preferred a

criminal petition bearing Crl. O.P. No. 24649/2023

before the High Court seeking quashing of the

proceedings in C.C. No. 233/2018 arising out of FIR No.

192/2013.

9. By the impugned order dated 22.11.2023, the High

Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings as

against appellant(s) herein on the ground that the

validity of the sale transaction between appellant(s)

and Vasanthi appeared to be hit by fraud and

misrepresentation, thereby forming part of the criminal

prosecution. The said finding was arrived at in view of

the fact that the Power of Attorney was executed by

4 Vasanthi in favour of appellant No.2/accused No.4 only

as a security for the loan availed. However, by making

use of the said Power of Attorney, appellant

No.2/accused No.4 transferred the suit property to his

own wife, appellant No.1 herein.

10. Hence, the present appeal.

11. We have heard Shri Vinodh Kanna B., learned

counsel for the appellant(s) and Shri Aravindh S.,

learned standing counsel for the respondent(s) – Union

Territory of Puducherry and perused the material on

record.

12. During the course of submissions, learned counsel

for the appellant(s) drew our attention to order dated

05.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the

High Court in Criminal O.P. No.148 of 2020 to contend

that the petitioners therein, who are none other than

the purchasers from the appellants herein, were granted

the relief under Section 482 of the CrPC inasmuch as

their Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the

charge sheet in C.C. No.233 of 2018 pending on the file

of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry was quashed

as against them.

5

13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

Criminal O.P. No.148 of 2020 was disposed of on

05.08.2022 and thereafter Criminal O.P. No.24649 of 2023

was filed by the appellants herein before the High

Court. Since the appellants herein and the petitioners

before the High Court in the earlier matter were all

part of the same transaction in respect of which a

common FIR was filed and they were all arrayed as

accused, the High Court ought to have considered order

dated 05.08.2022 passed in Criminal O.P. No.148 of 2020

and granted relief to the appellants herein.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

the aforesaid order has attained finality, and

therefore, the petitioners therein being accused Nos.1

and 2 have been granted the relief but the appellants

herein being accused Nos.4 and 5 have been denied the

said relief. It is not known as to what has happened to

accused No.3. Therefore, on the principle of parity and

on the fact that the accused are all part of the very

same FIR and when once it has been quashed insofar as

accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the said relief may

also be extended to the appellants, who are accused Nos.

4 and 5. He therefore, submitted that impugned order may

be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.

6

15. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the

respondent - Union Territory of Puducherry submitted

that the role of the appellants herein is different and

distinct from what has been attributed to accused Nos.1

and 2, who were merely purchasers. However, the

appellants herein are the ones who sold the subject

property to accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the complaint

was filed as against all of them. He submitted that

there is no merit in this appeal and that the impugned

order may not be interfered with and the appeal may be

dismissed.

16. We have considered the submissions advanced at the

Bar and we find that the High Court ought to have

considered the order dated 05.08.2022 passed in Criminal

O.P. No.148 of 2020 and applied the same to the case of

the appellants herein. But, there is no reference to the

said order in the impugned order. The High Court ought

to have applied the aforesaid order in the instant case.

17. Also as FIR No.192 of 2013 dated 19.09.2013 was

filed in respect of all the accused, and therefore, the

case of the appellants herein ought to have been allowed

and the criminal complaint ought to have been quashed.

7

18. In the circumstances, we find that the criminal

complaint as against the appellants herein also ought to

be quashed. Hence, the same is quashed. Consequently,

FIR No. 192 of 2013 and CC No.233 of 2018 pending on the

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry,

stand quashed.

19. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

……………………………………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

……………………………………………………………J. (PRASANNA B. VARALE) NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 02, 2025

8