Supreme Court of India
Mukul Agrawal vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 10 February, 2020
Author: Navin Sinha
Bench: Navin Sinha, Krishna Murari
NONREPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2020 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5261 of 2019) MUKUL AGRAWAL AND OTHERS ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by order dated 21.05.2019
dismissing their application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. declining to
quash the entire proceedings against them in Complaint Case
No.2705/2003 filed by the respondent no.2 under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, I.P.C.
3. The order of the High Court unfortunately only discusses the
principles for quashing laid down in judicial precedents and
Signature Not Verified
abruptly concludes to decline interference. The order does not
Digitally signed by
reflect any consideration of the facts, the materials and the reasons
why the High Court was not persuaded to entertain the application.
We are therefore deprived of the understanding for the reasons why
the High Court did not consider it a fit case for interference.
Needless to state, any order which is amenable to challenge in a
superior court, has to be reasoned and speaking to facilitate better
understanding of the order making judicial review an effective
4. The respondent filed Original Suit No. 12 of 1996 stating that
he was a tenant in the disputed shop and was wrongly being asked
to vacate, declining to accept rent, seeking a permanent injunction
restraining the appellant from evicting him, disconnecting the
telephone and water connection etc. The appellant relied on an
agreement dated 30.03.1988 to submit that the respondent was
working in the disputed shop and that he was not a tenant.
5. Even while the suit was pending, the present complaint came
to be filed alleging that the agreement dated 30.03.1988 produced
by the appellant in the suit was a false and fabricated document
and that the respondent had never signed such an agreement. The
basis for the complaint was the opinion of the handwriting expert
submitted in the civil court.
6. The civil suit came to be decided on 13.05.2015 holding that
the signature of respondent no.2 on the agreement dated
30.03.1988 was forged and that it was a fabricated document.
7. The aggrieved appellant, preferred Civil Appeal No. 17/2015
which has been allowed setting aside the findings in the suit holding
that the agreement was not a false and fabricated document.
8. In view of the conclusive opinion of the appellate court that the
agreement dated 30.03.1988 was not a forged document, the very
substratum of the criminal complaint vanishes. In the
circumstances to allow the appellants to be prosecuted will only be
a complete abuse of the process of law. The proceedings in
Complaint Case No. 2705/2003 are therefore quashed and the
appeal is allowed.
February 10, 2020.