LI Network
Published on: February 18, 2024 at 19:58 IST
The Supreme Court highlighted that, when exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the examination of only the prima facie existence of the alleged offence is essential.
The apex court made this assertion while reinstating an FIR related to forgery charges.
The case involved an individual accused of forging a Power of Attorney (PoA), which led to the unauthorized transfer of land ownership.
The original landowner, upon discovering the illicit transaction, initiated criminal proceedings. Although the trial court declared the transaction null and void, canceling both the PoA and the sale deed, the Jharkhand High Court later quashed the FIR.
The Supreme Court, however, deemed the High Court’s decision erroneous, citing a misunderstanding and misapplication of the law.
Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol emphasized that, when invoking inherent powers, the focus should solely be on the prima facie existence of the alleged offence.
Represented by AOR Braj Kishore Mishra, the appellant argued that parallel civil proceedings had already been initiated by the original landowner, and pursuing criminal prosecution would amount to an abuse of the court process.
The defense further contended that the alleged act appeared to be more of a civil wrong than a criminal offense. In response, the Supreme Court noted that the state, possessing expertise in service matters, becomes a primary party in such litigation.
The Court pointed out that the offences mentioned in the FIR fell under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), prompting the High Court to assess whether any grounds for quashing were established.
Finding the exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC unjustified, the Supreme Court restored the FIR to the concerned district court, emphasizing the absence of discussion on the criminal aspect in the High Court’s judgment.
Consequently, the FIR was reinstated, and the Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal in the case titled “Navin Kumar Rai v. Surendra Singh & Ors. (2024 INSC 116).”