| Headnote |
Issue for Consideration: Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the vendee for the criminal acts, misuse of power of attorney-PoA, misappropriation of property, and executing fraudulent sale deed, when he had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor in any misdeed by the PoA holder vis-à-vis the land-owners/principals.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR – Power of Attorney-PoA executed by the landowners/ principals, including the informant and others in favour of the one for management and maintenance of their property – Allegations that the PoA holder sold some portion of the landowners’ property to the appellant-vendee and executed the sale deed at Dehradun in favour of the vendee where the land is located, and when asked, the PoA did not respond to the legal notice nor gave any information to the informant and others about the sale – Case registered u/ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the accused and the vendee alleging commission of criminal acts, that by misusing the PoA, they misappropriated the property, did not rendition the account and obtained the Sale Deed without the signatures of the land-owners – Magistrate, Buxar took cognizance of the offences – Petition for quashing of FIR – Rejected by the High Court – Challenge to, by the appellant: Held: In the appropriate case, protection is to be accorded against unwanted criminal prosecution and from the prospect of unnecessary trial – On facts, dispute, if any, is between the land-owners/principals inter-se and/or between them and the PoA- holder – It would not be proper to drag the vendee into criminal litigation, when he had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor any misdeed by the PoA holder vis-à-vis the land-owners/ principals – Moreover, the entire consideration amount was paid by the vendee to the PoA-holder – Furthermore, the only controversy was related to the Sale Deed executed by the PoA-holder in favour of the vendee in Dehradun for property located at Dehradun, thus, needs to be examined by the Dehradun courts – Moreover, a suit filed by the land-owners/principals at Dehradun for the same cause of action was dismissed in favour of the vendee – Thus, case for interference not made out – Impugned judgment is set aside – FIR as also the order taking cognizance and all consequential acts emanating therefrom, insofar as they relate to the appellant, are quashed. [Paras 21, 34, 35] Deeds and documents – Construction of a deed or a contract – Power of Attorney-PoA executed by the landowners/principals, in favour of the person from whom the vendee purchased the land – Clauses 3 and 11 of the PoA together authorized the PoA-holder to execute deeds, including of/for sale, receive consideration in this regard and proceed to registration upon accepting consideration on behalf of the land-owners/ principals – Clause 15 of the PoA, states that the PoA-holder was authorized to present for registration the sale deeds or other documents signed by the land-owners/principals and admit execution thereof – Interpretation of: Held: Is to be interpreted harmoniously as also logically the effect of a combined reading of the clauses – When the three clauses are read, Clause 15 is, in addition to Clauses 3 and 11 of the PoA and not in derogation thereof – Besides the contingencies where the PoA holder had been authorized to execute any type of deed and receive consideration and get registration done, which included sale of movable/immovable property on behalf of the landowners/ principals, the land owners/principals had also retained the authority that if a Sale Deed was/had been signed by them, the very same PoA holder was also authorized to present it for registration and admit to execution before the authority concerned – Thus, there is no contradiction between Clauses 3, 11 and 15 of the PoA – All three clauses are capable of being construed in such a manner that they operate in their own fields and are not rendered nugatory – Even if a conflict had been perceived between Clauses 3 and 11, on the one hand, and Clause 15 on the other, Clauses 3 and 11 would prevail over Clause 15 as when the same cannot be reconciled, the earlier clause(s) would prevail over the later clause(s), when construing a Deed or a Contract. [Paras 24, 27-30] |
