Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Sellers, Directs Application of Earlier Quashing Order

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prasanna B. Varale heard an appeal by Uma Maheswari and another against the Madras High Court's order dated 22.11.2023 which had dismissed their petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.192/2013 and the subsequent criminal complaint in C.C. No.233/2018. The appeal arose from allegations of fraud, criminal breach of trust and intimidation in relation to a disputed sale executed allegedly by misuse of a Power of Attorney.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings as against the appellants, holding that the High Court ought to have applied an earlier order in favour of co-accused who were purchasers in the same transaction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The judgment further stated that "In the circumstances, we find that the criminal complaint as against the appellants herein also ought to be quashed." Consequentially, FIR No.192 of 2013 and C.C. No.233 of 2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry stood quashed and the appeal was allowed and disposed of.

Background

The prosecution alleged that Vasanthi executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one of the accused as security for a loan of Rs.20 lakh and that the Power of Attorney was thereafter used to effect a sale of the suit property to others, in furtherance of a common intention to dishonestly grab the property. On 19.09.2013 respondent No.2 filed a missing persons complaint; following investigation the FIR's allegations were modified and a chargesheet was filed against five accused under Sections 405, 420, 386, 506 (part 2) read with Section 34 and Section 120B IPC.

Accused Nos.1 and 2 earlier succeeded in Criminal O.P. No.148/2020 before the Madras High Court by order dated 05.08.2022, which quashed proceedings against them on the ground that the complaint against them was lodged with an "ulterior motive" and there was no material implicating them. The appellants (accused Nos.4 and 5) then sought quashing in Criminal O.P. No.24649/2023; the High Court declined relief observing that the sale transaction "appeared to be hit by fraud and misrepresentation" and that the Power of Attorney had been used to transfer the property.

On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the earlier quashing order in respect of purchasers (accused Nos.1 and 2) pertained to the same FIR and transaction and that the High Court had not applied that order to the appellants. The Court found parity in the cases warranted extension of the earlier relief to the appellants and thus quashed the complaint as against them. The Court disposed of pending applications and did not record any separate interim directions.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1494 Case Title: UMA MAHESWARI & ANR. v. THE STATE & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Vinodh Kanna B., Advocate For the Respondent(s): Shri Aravindh S., Standing Counsel, Union Territory of Puducherry