2019 INSC 0658
1
                                                NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 834 of 2017
The Commissioner of Police & Ors. .. Appellants
Versus
Devender Anand & Ors. .. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the High Court
of   Delhi   in   Writ   Petition   (Crl.)   No.   299   of   2016,   the   original
respondents   –   appellants   –   Commissioner   of   Police   and   Others
have preferred the present appeal.
2. That respondent No. 1 herein – original complainant entered
into   an   agreement   to   sell   in   respect   of   house   situated   at   WZ­
1179,   Plot   No.   11,   Rani   Bagh,   Shakur   Basti,   Delhi   with
respondent Nos. 2 to 3 herein for a consideration of Rs.54 lakhs.

2
That   the   agreement   to   sell,   general   power   of   attorney   etc.   were
executed   and   the   entire   amount   of   consideration   of   Rs.54   lakhs
was paid to the agreement sellers.  According to respondent No. 1
–   original   complainant,   subsequently   on   31.07.2013,   he   learnt
that the said property had been mortgaged to Andhra Bank when
a   notice   by   the   said   bank   was   affixed   on   the   property.
According to respondent No. 1 – original complainant, thereafter
he was compelled to settle the claim of Andhra Bank to the tune
of   Rs.16,93,059/­   for   release   of   the   mortgaged   documents.
Respondent   No.   1   –   original   complainant   also   paid   the
registration   charges   of   Rs,7,81,941/­   for   registration   of   the   sale
deed   in   his   favour.     That,   thereafter   he   lodged   a   complaint   with
the   Karol   Bagh   police   station   against   respondent   Nos.   2   and   3
herein   for   the   offence  under   Section   420/34  of   the  Indian   Penal
Code   alleging,   inter   alia,   that   though   the   property   was   put   as   a
mortgage   with   the   Andhra   Bank,   the   same   was   not   disclosed   to
him   and   without   disclosing   the   same   the   property   in   question
was   sold.       Therefore,   it   was   the   case   of   respondent   No.   1   –
original complaint that he was cheated by respondent Nos. 2 and
3 herein.   That a preliminary inquiry was conducted on the said

3
complaint by the Sub­Inspector of the Police posted at the Karol
Bagh   police   station.     According   to   the   complainant,   on
20.05.2015, the Sub­Inspector submitted his report that a  prima
facie   offence under  Section 420/34 IPC  is made out.   He sought
permission   to   register   a   case   under   Section   420/34   IPC   for
further   investigation.     According   to   the   complainant,   the   SHO
concurred   with   the   aforesaid   conclusion   in   his   noting   dated
21.05.2015   and   put   up   the   matter   before   the   ACP   concerned.
According   to   the   complainant,   the   ACP   also   concurred   with   the
said   conclusion   in   his   noting   dated   25.05.2015.       According   to
the   complainant,   despite   the   above,   the   FIR   was   not   registered
and   the   same   Sub­Inspector   Yogender   Kumar   of   Karol   Bagh
police   station   started   a   fresh   process   of   preliminary   inquiry   on
the same set of facts.     He concluded that since the complainant
had   given   his   consent   to   the   registration   of   the   sale   deed   and
discharge   of   the   liability   of   the   bank,   even   though   the   said
mortgage   as   revealed   to   him   on   31.07.2013,   therefore,   no  police
action   is   required.     The   said   file   noting   was   concurred   by   the
SHO   with   the   diametrically   opposite   view   taken   by   the   Sub­
Inspector   Yogender   Kumar   earlier.         The   ACP   also   concurred

4
with   the   view   that   only   a   dispute   of   civil   nature   has   arisen   and
that  a complaint  be  filed.     It appears  that  thereafter   the  matter
was   placed   before   the   Additional   DCP   who   also   concurred   with
the   subsequent   view   that   no   case   is   made   out   against   the
accused,   vide   his   noting   dated   07.08.2015.       That   the   said   view
was carried by the DCP/C and JCP/CR as well.  
2.1 As   the   FIR   was   not   registered   against   the   accused   for   the
offence   under   Section   420/34   IPC   as   alleged,   respondent   No.   1
herein   approached   the   High   Court   by   way   of   writ   petition   and
prayed for the following reliefs:
“1. Pass   appropriate   writ/order/direction   thereby
ordering appropriate action to be taken against the erring
police officers, including but not limited respondents No.
2 to 5, who are responsible for non­registration of the FIR
in spite of a preliminary  enquiry dated 20.5.2015 clearly
submitting   a   finding   that   a   cognizable   offence   under
Section 420/34 of IPC was made out against respondents
no. 6 and 7.
2. Pass   appropriate   writ/order/direction   thereby
quashing  and declaring to be null and void the so­called
second/subsequent   undated   report   of   preliminary
enquiry,   and   the   subsequent   endorsements   of   the   SHO,
PS   Karol   Bagh   dated   16   July   2015,   the   undated

5
endorsement   of   the   ACP   (Karol   Bagh   Sub­Division)   and
the   endorsement   of   DCP   (Central)   dated   7   August   2015
as the same are without any legal sanctity and have been
created   and   brought   into   existence   against   the   settled
provisions   of   law   and   without   following   due   process   of
law   and   without   following   due   process   of   law   and   in
contravention  of  the   procedure laid  down  by  the  Hon’ble
Supreme   Court   in   its   judgment   ‘Lalita   Kumari   vs.
Government of U.P.
3. xxx xxx xxx
4. Pass   appropriate   writ/order/direction   thereby
calling upon the office of the Commissioner of Police, New
Delhi,   to   submit   a   report   with   respect   to   the   relevant
provisions   of   law   under   which   his   office   has   empowered
the area ACP and DCP to approve registration of FIR, and
upon  submission   of   such  a  report,  the   vires   and   legality
of  the  same be  scrutinised  as  the  same  is  in  violation   of
the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
procedural guidelines laid down by  the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case ‘Lalita Kumar vs. Government of U.P.
5. Pass   appropriate   writ/order/direction   thereby
directing   the   respondent   no.   1   to   hold   an   appropriate
enquiry/investigation   into   the   said   circumstances   under
which   the   illegal   and   uncalled   for   second   line   of
preliminary   enquiry   was  initiated  and   carried  out   by   the
same   officers,   on   the   same   facts   and   he   may   further   be
directed to submit a report of the said enquiry before this

6
Hon’ble   Court   and   take   appropriate   action   by   way   of
registration   of   cases,   if   required,   and   take   all   other
necessary   and   proper   actions   in   the   mater   against   the
officials found guilty in the matter.”
2.2 That   the   aforesaid   prayers/reliefs   were   opposed   by   the
appellants   herein   and   respondent   Nos.   2   and   3   herein.     It   was
submitted that the original complainant had earlier preferred an
application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. which came to be
rejected   by   the   learned   Magistrate,   vide   order   dated   27.03.2015
and that the said order was not assailed by the complainant and
thereafter   a   fresh   private   complaint   under   Section   200   Cr.P.C.
has   been   preferred   which   is   pending   before   the   learned
Magistrate.     It   was   also   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   original
accused that the  dispute is of  a civil nature which  is tried to  be
converted   into   criminal,   which   is   nothing   but   an   abuse   of   the
process   of   law.       It   was   submitted   that   despite   having   the
knowledge of the mortgage of the property with the Andhra Bank,
thereafter the complainant himself had paid the mortgage money
to   the   Andhra   Bank   and   even   got   the   sale   deed   executed   in   his
favour.   It was submitted that if the complainant was aggrieved,

7
in that case, he would not have got the sale deed executed in his
favour.  
2.3 That, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition and has directed that the case
be placed before the Commissioner of Police for taking an action
against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 therein (who are appellant Nos. 3
to   5   herein)   for   taking   a   diametrically   opposite   view.     The   High
Court has also directed that the Commissioner of Police would be
well   advised   to   resort   to   course   correction   by   directing   that   the
earlier  preliminary inquiry  be taken to its logical conclusion and
the   steps   in   that   regard   by   taken   within   two   weeks.     The   High
Court   has   also   observed   that   the   complainant   shall   also   be
entitled   to   costs   quantified   at   Rs.25,000/­   to   be   paid   by   the
State.   
3. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   parties   at   length.     We   have   also   considered   the   material   on
record.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties  at  length  and  considering   the  material  on  record,  we  are
of   the   opinion   that   the   criminal   proceedings   initiated   by

8
respondent No. 1 – original complainant is nothing but an abuse
of the process of law for settling a civil dispute.  
4.1 Even considering the nature of allegations in the complaint,
we   are   of   the   firm   opinion   that   no   case   is   made   out   for   taking
cognizance   of   the   offence   under   Section   420/34   IPC.     The   case
involves   a   civil   dispute   and   for   settling   a   civil   dispute,   the
criminal complaint has been filed, which is nothing but an abuse
of the process of law.
4.2 It   is   required   to   be   noted   that   after   having   come   to   know
that   the   property   was   mortgaged   with   the   Andhra   Bank,   the
original   complainant   himself   paid   the   mortgage   money   and   got
the   mortgage   redeemed.       Not   only   that,   thereafter,   he   got   the
sale   deed   executed   in   his   name.     Thereafter   also,   he   filed   the
complaint   with   the   learned   Magistrate,   being   an   application
under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected by
the   learned   Magistrate,   vide   order   dated   27.03.2015.     The   said
order   was   not   assailed   by   the   complainant.     It   appears   that
thereafter he filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
which   was   pending   before   the   learned   Magistrate.     Despite   the
above,   he   filed   a   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court,   which   is

9
nothing   but   an   abuse   of   the   process   of   law.     The   criminal
proceedings   have   been   initiated   by   the   original   complainant   to
settle the civil dispute.  Therefore, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Investigating Officer and other police officers were
justified   in   not   registering   the   FIR   and   in   coming   to   the
conclusion   that   the   complaint   be   filed.       The   earlier   opinion   on
preliminary inquiry was never placed before the DCP.  Thereafter,
on thorough  investigation/inquiry  and  considering  the  facts  and
circumstances   of   the   case   narrated   hereinabove,   when   it   was
opined   that   the   dispute   between   the   parties   is   of   a   civil   nature,
the High Court ought not to have issued further directions.   The
High   Court   ought   to   have   closed   the   proceedings.     Not   only   the
High   Court   has   issued  further  directions,  but   even   has   imposed
costs and an action against the appellants 3 to 5 herein which, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, is not sustainable.  
4.3 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and as
observed   hereinabove ,   the   initiation   of   the   criminal   proceedings
by   the   original   complainant   is   nothing   but   an   abuse   of   the
process   of   law,   we   not   only   quash   and   set   aside   the   impugned
judgment   and   order,   but   also   quash   the   criminal   proceedings

10
pending   before   the   learned   Magistrate   in   respect   of   the
transaction   in   question.       Consequently,   the   present   appeal   is
allowed,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   13.01.2017
passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside.   Even
the   criminal   proceedings   initiated   by   the   original   complainant
pending   before   the   learned   Magistrate   in   respect   of   the
transaction in question are hereby quashed and set aside.  
..................................J.
(ARUN MISHRA)
...................................J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
New Delhi                                              ...................................J.
August 08, 2019                                    (M. R. SHAH)