Court’s Decision:
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging concurrent orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court which had rejected a private complaint alleging forgery in a 1976 land sale transaction. The Court held that “no person of ordinary prudence can sit idle for such a long passage of time” and found the claim hopelessly barred by limitation and lacking in material particulars or proof of fraud.
Facts:
The petitioner filed a complaint in 2012 alleging that two individuals, previously agricultural tenants, fraudulently executed a sale deed in 1976 relating to land in Chosar village, and that their signatures and those of their family were forged. A criminal complaint under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, and 114 of IPC was filed. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. This was confirmed by the Sessions Court in revision. The petitioner also filed a civil suit which was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC for being time-barred. He then filed the present petition.
Issues:
- Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the criminal complaint for lack of prima facie case.
- Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to intervene in concurrent factual findings.
- Whether limitation bars the claims of forgery and fraud when the transaction occurred decades ago.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner contended that courts below failed to apply judicial mind and ought to have sent the documents for forensic examination. He claimed to have acted promptly upon learning of the forgery and argued that the complaint was wrongly dismissed on the ground that it was civil in nature and delayed.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents submitted that the sale occurred in 1976, was never challenged until decades later, and that even revenue records were mutated with due process. They also pointed out that an SIT headed by the Collector had found no wrongdoing. Furthermore, the civil suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed as hopelessly time-barred and the present criminal complaint was an afterthought.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court reiterated the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, relying on Garment Crafts v. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181 and Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal (2013) 9 SCC 374. It held that the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or overturn findings unless there is a clear abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.
Precedent Analysis:
- Garment Crafts v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181: Scope of Article 227 is supervisory, not appellate; limited to gross dereliction or legal perversity.
- Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 9 SCC 374: High Courts must not interfere under Article 227 unless the finding is manifestly unjust or without jurisdiction.
- Dilboo v. Dhanraji, (2000) 7 SCC 702: Knowledge of registered document presumed; limitation cannot be extended by alleging late discovery of fraud.
- Van Oil Petroleum Ltd. v. MV Denali and Ullasbhai Parsottambhai v. Patel Dineshbhai Ramabhai, Gujarat HC: Mere general allegations of fraud without specific material particulars are insufficient to extend limitation.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court found no illegality or perversity in the orders below. It held that the complaint was filed after decades, with no specific proof of fraud. The petitioner’s civil suit had already failed due to limitation. The court observed that even revenue entries were properly mutated, and that no case had been made out for interference under Article 227.
Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed. The Court refused to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, holding that the findings were legally justified and supported by facts and law.
Implications:
This judgment reinforces the principle that stale claims, even when couched as fraud, will not revive limitation or justify criminal prosecution without material evidence. It clarifies the narrow scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and discourages misuse of judicial process to revisit settled transactions.
