Date of the Judgment: May 09, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 506
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a criminal case be pursued against individuals who purchased land from a seller with a seemingly clear title, even if that seller’s right to the property is later disputed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on whether the purchasers could be held liable for offenses like cheating and forgery when they were unaware of any underlying family disputes. The Court, in this judgment, quashed the criminal proceedings against the land purchasers, emphasizing that they were not involved in any conspiracy or fraudulent activity. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around a property dispute following the death of Gulam Mohamad. Gulam Mohamad owned agricultural land, which, after his death, was inherited by his legal heirs, including his second wife, Nusarat Jahan. Nusarat Jahan remarried after Gulam Mohamad’s death. Subsequently, she sold a portion of the land to Mukeem Ahmad and another individual (the Appellants) on 24.10.2016 for ₹14 lakhs. The sale deed was registered on 17.03.2017. Aash Mohamad, Gulam Mohamad’s son from his first marriage, filed a civil suit on 27.03.2017 challenging the sale. Later, on 29.05.2018, Aash Mohamad filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Magistrate, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) on 28.06.2018 against Nusarat Jahan and the Appellants under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Appellants then approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, which was rejected.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Before 2011 (Approx.) | Death of Gulam Mohamad. |
| After Gulam Mohamad’s Death | Mutation of land in revenue records in the name of legal heirs, including Nusarat Jahan. |
| 24.10.2016 | Nusarat Jahan sells 0.3305 hectares of land to the Appellants. |
| 17.03.2017 | Sale deed registered. |
| 27.03.2017 | Aash Mohamad files a civil suit challenging the sale deed. |
| 29.05.2018 | Aash Mohamad files an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. |
| 28.06.2018 | FIR registered against Nusarat Jahan and the Appellants. |
| 11.04.2019 | High Court rejects the Appellants’ plea to quash the FIR. |
| 09.05.2023 | Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against the Appellants. |
Course of Proceedings
The Appellants initially filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, seeking to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings. The High Court dismissed this petition on 11.04.2019. The Appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of India against this order.
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 (IPC): This section deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It states, “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section pertains to forgery of valuable security, will, etc. It states, “Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section addresses forgery for the purpose of cheating. It states, “Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with using a forged document as genuine. It states, “Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.”
- Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section allows a magistrate to order an investigation by the police.
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section allows the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of law.
Arguments
The Appellants argued that they purchased the land from Nusarat Jahan after paying due consideration and that the sale deed was registered on 17.03.2017. They were not aware of any family dispute or that Nusarat Jahan had remarried, which could affect her right to sell the property. They were surprised to receive a notice in a civil suit filed by the complainant on 27.03.2017, which was filed prior to the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. They contended that the FIR did not contain any allegations of cheating against them and that the allegations were solely against Nusarat Jahan. They further argued that continuing the trial would be an abuse of the process of the court, especially since a civil suit was already pending.
The Respondents argued that the arguments raised by the Appellants required appreciation of facts, which could only be done after recording evidence. They stated that a charge sheet had already been submitted and that there was no error in the High Court’s order. They also contended that the filing of a civil suit had not been denied.
| Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Quashing of FIR |
✓Purchased land from Nusarat Jahan for consideration. ✓Sale deed registered on 17.03.2017. ✓No knowledge of family dispute or Nusarat Jahan’s remarriage. ✓FIR contains no allegations of cheating against them. ✓Civil suit was filed prior to the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. ✓Continuation of trial is abuse of process of court. |
✓Arguments require appreciation of facts. ✓Charge sheet has been submitted. ✓No error in High Court’s order. ✓Filing of civil suit not denied. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:
- Whether the criminal proceedings against the Appellants under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) should be quashed, given that they were purchasers of the land and there were no allegations of conspiracy or fraud against them in the FIR.
The court also dealt with the sub-issue of whether the pendency of a civil suit challenging the sale deed should affect the criminal proceedings.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the criminal proceedings against the Appellants should be quashed? | Yes, the criminal proceedings were quashed. | The FIR did not contain any allegations of conspiracy or fraud against the Appellants. They purchased the land when it was recorded in Nusarat Jahan’s name. The court also considered that a civil suit was already pending. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the Court considered the factual matrix of the case and the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Section 420, Indian Penal Code | Indian Parliament | Considered the provision to determine if the facts of the case constituted an offence of cheating. |
| Section 467, Indian Penal Code | Indian Parliament | Considered the provision to determine if the facts of the case constituted an offence of forgery of valuable security, will, etc. |
| Section 468, Indian Penal Code | Indian Parliament | Considered the provision to determine if the facts of the case constituted an offence of forgery for the purpose of cheating. |
| Section 471, Indian Penal Code | Indian Parliament | Considered the provision to determine if the facts of the case constituted an offence of using a forged document as genuine. |
| Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure | Indian Parliament | Considered the provision to determine the procedure for ordering an investigation by the police. |
| Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure | Indian Parliament | Considered the provision to determine the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants purchased land for consideration and were unaware of any dispute. | The Court accepted this submission, noting that the sale deed was registered in Nusarat Jahan’s name and there was no evidence of conspiracy or fraud by the Appellants. |
| FIR did not contain any allegations of cheating against the Appellants. | The Court agreed, stating that the allegations were solely against Nusarat Jahan. |
| Civil suit was filed prior to the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. | The Court noted this fact, indicating that the civil dispute was already pending and that the complainant concealed this fact in the complaint made to the police. |
| Arguments raised by the Respondents required appreciation of facts. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that a plain reading of the FIR did not make out a case against the Appellants. |
The Court did not cite any cases or books in this judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the absence of any allegations against the Appellants in the FIR. The Court emphasized that the Appellants purchased the land when it was recorded in Nusarat Jahan’s name and that there was no evidence of conspiracy or fraudulent intent on their part. The Court also noted the pendency of a civil suit challenging the sale deed, suggesting that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and did not warrant criminal proceedings against the Appellants. The fact that the complainant had concealed the pendency of the civil suit from the police also weighed against the complainant.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Absence of allegations against Appellants | 40% |
| Land recorded in Nusarat Jahan’s name | 30% |
| Pendency of civil suit | 20% |
| Concealment of civil suit | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the factual matrix of the case and the application of the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized that the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code were not met in the case of the Appellants. The Court observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the Appellants had any fraudulent intent or were part of any conspiracy. The Court also noted that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and that the criminal proceedings were an attempt to circumvent the civil remedy.
The 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 own ownership at the time of registration of sale deed in their favour.”
The Court further 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.”
There was no minority opinion in this case.
Key Takeaways
- ✓Purchasers of land cannot be held criminally liable for offenses like cheating and forgery if they were unaware of any underlying disputes and purchased the property when it was recorded in the seller’s name.
- ✓Criminal proceedings should not be used to circumvent civil remedies.
- ✓Concealing material facts, such as the pendency of a civil suit, in a criminal complaint can weaken the case.
- ✓A plain reading of the FIR is crucial to determine if a case is made out against the accused.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the criminal proceedings against the Appellants be quashed.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a purchaser of property cannot be held criminally liable for offences like cheating and forgery if there is no proof of conspiracy or fraudulent intent on their part, and if the property was recorded in the name of the seller at the time of the sale. This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings should not be initiated to resolve civil disputes and that the FIR must disclose a clear case of criminal wrongdoing against the accused.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mukeem Ahmad vs. State of U.P. quashed the criminal proceedings against the land purchasers, emphasizing that they were not involved in any conspiracy or fraudulent activity. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of considering the factual context of a case and ensuring that criminal proceedings are not used to circumvent civil remedies. The judgment provides clarity on the extent of liability for purchasers of property in cases where the seller’s right to the property is later disputed.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Quashing of FIR
Child Category: Section 420, Indian Penal Code
Child Category: Section 467, Indian Penal Code
Child Category: Section 468, Indian Penal Code
Child Category: Section 471, Indian Penal Code
Child Category: Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure
Child Category: Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure
FAQ
Q: Can I be arrested if I buy land and it turns out the seller didn’t have the right to sell it?
A: Not necessarily. If you bought the land in good faith, without knowing about any disputes, and the land was recorded in the seller’s name, you are unlikely to face criminal charges.
Q: What should I do if I find out there is a dispute about the land I bought?
A: Consult a lawyer immediately. You may need to file a civil suit to protect your rights.
Q: What is an FIR?
A: An FIR, or First Information Report, is a written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offense.
Q: What is Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code?
A: Section 420 deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property.
Q: What is Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
A: Section 482 allows the High Court to use its inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the process of law.
Source: Mukeem Ahmad vs. State of U.P.