Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Land Buyers: Mukeem Ahmad vs. State of U.P. (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 09, 2023
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023
Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Can a person who buys a property be held criminally liable if the seller’s right to sell that property is later questioned? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case where a land purchase led to allegations of cheating. The core question was whether the buyers could be prosecuted for fraud when they purchased land from a seller whose name was officially recorded as the owner, even if her right to sell was later challenged due to family disputes. This judgment clarifies the extent of criminal liability for buyers in such situations. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with the opinion authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute in Village Asara, District Bagpat. Gulam Mohamad owned agricultural land, which, after his death, was inherited by his children and his second wife, Nusarat Jahan. Nusarat Jahan’s name was officially recorded in the revenue records as a co-owner. Later, Nusarat Jahan sold a portion of this land to Mukeem Ahmad and another person on 17.3.2017 for ₹14 lakhs. After the sale, a civil suit was filed by Aash Mohamad (son of Gulam Mohamad) on 27.3.2017 challenging Nusarat Jahan’s right to sell the land, claiming that she had lost her inheritance rights upon remarrying. Subsequently, Aash Mohamad filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on 29.5.2018, leading to the registration of a criminal case against Mukeem Ahmad and the other buyer for cheating, along with Nusarat Jahan.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Aash Mohamad, son of the deceased Gulam Mohamad, filed a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). The FIR accused Nusarat Jahan of selling property she was not entitled to, and the buyers, Mukeem Ahmad and another, of cheating. The buyers then filed a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal case. The High Court dismissed their petition, stating that the matter required a factual inquiry. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):

• ✓ Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code: This section deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• ✓ Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code: This section deals with forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
• ✓ Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code: This section deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating.
• ✓ Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code: This section deals with using as genuine a forged document.
• ✓ Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• ✓ The appellants argued that they purchased the land from Nusarat Jahan after paying full consideration and that the sale deed was duly registered on 17.3.2017.
• ✓ They were not aware of any family dispute or that Nusarat Jahan had remarried, which might affect her right to sell the property.
• ✓ The appellants were surprised to learn about the dispute when they received notice of a civil suit filed by the complainant on 27.3.2017.
• ✓ The FIR does not contain any allegations of cheating against the appellants, and the allegations are solely against Nusarat Jahan.
• ✓ The appellants contended that continuing the criminal trial would be an abuse of the process of the court, especially since a civil suit was already pending.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• ✓ The respondents argued that the issues raised by the appellants required a detailed factual analysis, which could only be done after recording evidence.
• ✓ The respondents submitted that the chargesheet had already been submitted and the High Court had correctly considered all the arguments.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether, on a plain reading of the FIR, a case is made out against the appellants for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

No specific authorities (cases or books) were cited by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

No authorities were cited in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• ✓ The FIR did not contain any allegations of conspiracy or connivance by the appellants with Nusarat Jahan.
• ✓ The land was duly recorded in Nusarat Jahan’s name at the time of the sale deed.
• ✓ The civil suit was filed more than a year before the criminal complaint, and this fact was concealed.
• ✓ A plain reading of the FIR did not make out a case against the appellants.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments presented and concluded that the FIR did not disclose any criminal intent or action on the part of the appellants. The fact that the land was registered in the seller’s name at the time of the sale was a crucial factor in the Court’s reasoning. The Court also noted that the complainant had concealed the fact that a civil suit was already pending.

The Supreme Court stated, “A plain reading of the aforesaid FIR shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellants that they are part of any conspiracy or acted in connivance with Nusarat Jahan for purchase of land which was duly recorded in her ownership at the time of registration of sale deed in their favour.”

The Court also observed, “It is also an admitted fact on record that more than a year prior to the registration of FIR, the complainant had already filed a civil suit challenging the sale deed. The aforesaid fact was concealed in the complaint made to the police.”

The Court concluded, “In the aforesaid factual matrix, and on plain reading of the FIR, in our opinion no case is made out against the Appellants.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Land buyers cannot be held criminally liable for cheating if the land was registered in the seller’s name at the time of sale.
• ✓ A criminal case cannot be sustained against buyers if there is no evidence of conspiracy or connivance with the seller.
• ✓ Concealing the fact that a civil suit was pending before filing a criminal complaint can weaken the criminal case.
• ✓ The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of examining the specific allegations in the FIR and the evidence to determine criminal liability.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and quashed the criminal case registered against the appellants. The Court directed that all subsequent proceedings against the appellants in Case Crime No. 341 of 2018 be terminated.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion on any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a criminal case for cheating cannot be sustained against a buyer of land if, at the time of sale, the land was registered in the seller’s name, and there is no evidence of conspiracy or connivance between the buyer and seller. This judgment reinforces the principle that a buyer cannot be held criminally liable for a seller’s disputed title if the buyer acted in good faith and the land was officially recorded in the seller’s name.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mukeem Ahmad vs. State of U.P. clarifies that a criminal case for cheating cannot be sustained against land buyers if the land was registered in the seller’s name at the time of sale and there is no evidence of conspiracy. The Court quashed the criminal case against the appellants, emphasizing that a plain reading of the FIR did not disclose any criminal intent on their part. This decision provides important guidance on the limits of criminal liability for buyers in land transactions.