Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 11-01-2019 in case of petitioner name Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
| |

Frivolous Criminal Complaint Quashed: Supreme Court Grants Relief in Property Dispute

Updated on

The Supreme Court of India recently quashed a criminal case filed over a family property dispute, emphasizing that litigation should not be used as a tool for harassment. The case, Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., involved allegations of fraud and misappropriation of shares. The Supreme Court held that the complaint was an abuse of legal process and directed its dismissal.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around a dispute over shares allegedly owned by the complainant, Arun Kumar Goyal, who accused his father, Suresh Kumar Goyal, and other family members of fraudulently withholding them. Arun Kumar claimed that he had purchased shares in Reliance Industries Ltd. and Amrit Banaspati Ltd., which were in the custody of the accused, and that they had forged his signature to claim bonus shares.

In 2009, he filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471, 323, 504, 506, 447, and 448 IPC, alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust. Initially, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC, but upon revision, the Sessions Court directed a fresh hearing.

Subsequently, the accused moved an application under Section 245(2) CrPC for discharge, which was rejected. The accused then approached the Allahabad High Court, which refused to interfere, leading them to file an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Key Arguments by the Appellants

  • The shares in question were jointly held by the complainant and his brother, and the complainant had no sole ownership over them.
  • The purchase of shares was made using the father’s funds, and there was no evidence that the complainant had paid for them.
  • There was no act of fraud or misappropriation—bonus shares were issued by the company as per their corporate policies.
  • The allegations of fraud and forgery were baseless and motivated by a family dispute.
  • The complaint was filed as an act of retaliation after the father disowned the complainant.

Arguments by the Respondents

  • The shares were in the complainant’s name, and the accused had wrongfully retained them.
  • The accused had forged the complainant’s signature to claim bonus shares.
  • The complaint was valid as it alleged a breach of trust and misappropriation.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, examined the material on record and held:

“The shares in question, since their acquisition, have always been in the custody of Appellant No.1. The material on record is absolutely clear that the acquisition was from the funds of Appellant No.1.”

The Court noted that:

  • The complainant had no documentary proof of purchasing the shares himself.
  • The allegations of forgery and fraud were unsubstantiated.
  • The father had disowned the complainant, and multiple civil and criminal cases had been filed between the parties.
  • The allegations were motivated and intended to harass the accused.

The Court also cited the judgment in Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, which laid down guidelines for quashing criminal cases:

  • If the material relied upon by the accused is of “sterling and impeccable quality” that clearly refutes the allegations.
  • If the allegations in the complaint are inherently improbable or false.
  • If continuing with the trial would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal complaint and set aside the orders of the lower courts, granting relief to the accused:

“We are convinced that the present criminal complaint is nothing but an attempt to wreck vengeance against the father, brother, and brother-in-law of the complainant.”

Additionally, the Court imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on the complainant for filing a frivolous case.

Legal and Social Implications

  • The ruling reiterates that criminal law should not be misused in family disputes.
  • It highlights the importance of documentary evidence in fraud allegations.
  • The judgment serves as a deterrent against filing malicious complaints for personal vendettas.
  • The decision provides clarity on the threshold for quashing criminal cases under Section 482 CrPC.

This case reinforces the need for courts to scrutinize complaints to prevent the misuse of criminal law in civil disputes.


Petitioner Name: Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 11-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sri Suresh Kumar Goy vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 11-01-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts