CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

FIR Quashed - Dispute as Primarily Civil, Not Criminal Based on Power of Attorney Clauses Interpretation: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed an FIR against Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia, in a case involving allegations of property sale fraud through the misuse of Power of Attorney (PoA). The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, set aside the judgment of the High Court of Patna, which had dismissed the plea to quash the FIR registered under various sections of the IPC including Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 409, and 420.

The apex court, in its judgment, stated, "In sum, the dispute, if any, is between the land-owners/principals inter-se and/or between them and the PoA-holder. We think it would be improper to drag the appellant into criminal litigation, when he had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor any misdeed by the PoAholder vis-à-vis the land-owners/principals" (Para 34).

The case stemmed from an FIR filed in 2011 against Kalsia, alleging that he was part of a fraudulent transaction involving the sale of property, which belonged to the family of Maharaj Kumar Man Vijay Singh, one of the respondents in the case. The property was sold by Raj Kumar Karan Vijay Singh, who held a PoA from the family members, including the informant.

The Supreme Court's judgment hinged on the interpretation of the PoA clauses. The Court observed that "Clause 15 of the PoA is an additional provision retaining authority for sale with the land-owners/principals themselves and the process whereof would also entail presentation for registration and admission of its execution" (Para 29). This interpretation led the Court to conclude that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and not criminal.

Furthermore, the Court found that the entire consideration amount for the sale had been paid by the appellant to the PoA-holder, and thus, dragging the appellant into criminal litigation was unwarranted.

Date of Decision: 31st January 2024

BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIA VS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR

 

Latest Legal News