sec.420 - cheating - agreement of sale - received Rs.50 lakhs - sold parking place kept for a Club House as per municipal records - committed an offence - when there is ample evidence on record to say that accused played fraud on complainant - quashing of complaint is wrong - High court orders are set aside =
There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the property
belonged not only to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, but they were the
owners alongwith respondent Nos.3 and 4. The respondent No.3 has died
and respondent No.4 has been deleted from the array of parties by this
court earlier. There is ample evidence on record that the permission
had been sought and obtained from Municipal Corporation of Bhopal for
raising the construction of a Club House and the land in dispute had
been shown as vacant land for parking. It is too late for the
respondent Nos.1 & 2 to say that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 might have
forged their signatures for the reason that it is not their case in
the counter affidavit or even before the High Court that they had ever
raised any objection or filed any complaint before the police or any
competent court for forging their signatures by someone else on the
said application. More so, there are disputes regarding partition and
demarcation of shares between the respective parties. The sale deeds
are also on record that their shares have been sold not only by
respondent Nos.3 & 4 but also by respondent Nos.1 & 2 subsequently and
there is no land available today. No explanation could be furnished
by Mr. Prashant Kumar appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 as to why
this fact had not been brought to the notice of the court.
5. As the case raises a large number of disputed questions of fact,
we are of the considered opinion that there was no occasion for the
High Court to allow the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash
the criminal proceedings qua the said respondents.
6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned judgment and
order dated 15.3.2012 and allow the appeal. The learned trial court is
directed to proceed against the said respondents in accordance with
law.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2100 of 2013
Ashfaq Ahmed Quereshi & Anr. …Appellants
Versus
Namrata Chopra & Ors. …Respondents
O R D E R
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment
and order dated 15.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Jabalpur in M.Cr.C. No. 8882/2011, by which the High Court has
quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’).
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. The appellants entered into an agreement for sale of land
admeasuring 1.10 acres of land out of 2.20 acres of total land on
26.11.2009 which had been claimed by the said respondents 1 & 2 to be
of their exclusive ownership and for that appellants paid a sum of
rupees fifty lakhs to the said respondents as earnest money out of the
consideration of Rs.1,50,93,540/-.
B. The sale deed could not be executed as the appellants did not
make the payment for the reason that the said respondents did not
complete the legal formalities for transferring the land.
Later on,
the appellants came to know that the said respondent Nos.1 & 2
alongwith other co-sharers had got permission dated 27.3.2006 from the
Municipal Corporation of Bhopal for construction of the Club House on
the part of the said land and the subject matter of agreement to sell
had been shown therein as open land for parking purposes.
The Club
House has already been constructed on the land and the suit land is to
be used only for parking purpose.
C. After realizing that the appellants got cheated, there had been
claims and counter claims between the parties and ultimately several
notices were exchanged between the parties.
The appellants claimed a
refund of rupees fifty lakhs with interest, while the respondents
wanted to forfeit the earnest money for non-payment of further
instalments as agreed by the parties. The appellants filed a complaint
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 26.8.2010.
D. As the respondents came to know about filing of the complaint
they sold the suit property to one Ms. Nanhi J. Walia on 23.10.2010.
E. In the complaint case, evidence of the complainant and his
witnesses were recorded in November, 2010 and being satisfied, the
learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 6.12.2010 for the
offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
F. All the shares of other co-sharers of the said respondent Nos. 1
& 2 were also sold on 23.2.2011 to Ms. Nanhi J. Walia.
G. Aggrieved, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint qua them on the ground
that there had been a partition between the parties (co-sharers) and
so far as the application for seeking permission to raise the Club
House on the suit land was concerned, it had not been signed by the
said respondents/applicants, rather their signatures had been forged
by the co-sharers.
H. The High Court considered the case of both sides and ultimately
quashed the criminal proceedings qua the said respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Hence, this appeal
3. We have heard Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants, Shri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for respondent
Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri Arjun Garg, learned counsel for the State and
have also gone through the record of the case.
4. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the property
belonged not only to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, but they were the
owners alongwith respondent Nos.3 and 4. The respondent No.3 has died
and respondent No.4 has been deleted from the array of parties by this
court earlier. There is ample evidence on record that the permission
had been sought and obtained from Municipal Corporation of Bhopal for
raising the construction of a Club House and the land in dispute had
been shown as vacant land for parking. It is too late for the
respondent Nos.1 & 2 to say that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 might have
forged their signatures for the reason that it is not their case in
the counter affidavit or even before the High Court that they had ever
raised any objection or filed any complaint before the police or any
competent court for forging their signatures by someone else on the
said application. More so, there are disputes regarding partition and
demarcation of shares between the respective parties. The sale deeds
are also on record that their shares have been sold not only by
respondent Nos.3 & 4 but also by respondent Nos.1 & 2 subsequently and
there is no land available today. No explanation could be furnished
by Mr. Prashant Kumar appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 as to why
this fact had not been brought to the notice of the court.
5. As the case raises a large number of disputed questions of fact,
we are of the considered opinion that there was no occasion for the
High Court to allow the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash
the criminal proceedings qua the said respondents.
6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned judgment and
order dated 15.3.2012 and allow the appeal. The learned trial court is
directed to proceed against the said respondents in accordance with
law.
.........................………………..J.
(DR. B.S.
CHAUHAN)
.............………………………J.
(S.A. BOBDE)
New Delhi,
December 17, 2013
There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the property
belonged not only to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, but they were the
owners alongwith respondent Nos.3 and 4. The respondent No.3 has died
and respondent No.4 has been deleted from the array of parties by this
court earlier. There is ample evidence on record that the permission
had been sought and obtained from Municipal Corporation of Bhopal for
raising the construction of a Club House and the land in dispute had
been shown as vacant land for parking. It is too late for the
respondent Nos.1 & 2 to say that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 might have
forged their signatures for the reason that it is not their case in
the counter affidavit or even before the High Court that they had ever
raised any objection or filed any complaint before the police or any
competent court for forging their signatures by someone else on the
said application. More so, there are disputes regarding partition and
demarcation of shares between the respective parties. The sale deeds
are also on record that their shares have been sold not only by
respondent Nos.3 & 4 but also by respondent Nos.1 & 2 subsequently and
there is no land available today. No explanation could be furnished
by Mr. Prashant Kumar appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 as to why
this fact had not been brought to the notice of the court.
5. As the case raises a large number of disputed questions of fact,
we are of the considered opinion that there was no occasion for the
High Court to allow the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash
the criminal proceedings qua the said respondents.
6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned judgment and
order dated 15.3.2012 and allow the appeal. The learned trial court is
directed to proceed against the said respondents in accordance with
law.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2100 of 2013
Ashfaq Ahmed Quereshi & Anr. …Appellants
Versus
Namrata Chopra & Ors. …Respondents
O R D E R
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment
and order dated 15.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Jabalpur in M.Cr.C. No. 8882/2011, by which the High Court has
quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’).
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. The appellants entered into an agreement for sale of land
admeasuring 1.10 acres of land out of 2.20 acres of total land on
26.11.2009 which had been claimed by the said respondents 1 & 2 to be
of their exclusive ownership and for that appellants paid a sum of
rupees fifty lakhs to the said respondents as earnest money out of the
consideration of Rs.1,50,93,540/-.
B. The sale deed could not be executed as the appellants did not
make the payment for the reason that the said respondents did not
complete the legal formalities for transferring the land.
Later on,
the appellants came to know that the said respondent Nos.1 & 2
alongwith other co-sharers had got permission dated 27.3.2006 from the
Municipal Corporation of Bhopal for construction of the Club House on
the part of the said land and the subject matter of agreement to sell
had been shown therein as open land for parking purposes.
The Club
House has already been constructed on the land and the suit land is to
be used only for parking purpose.
C. After realizing that the appellants got cheated, there had been
claims and counter claims between the parties and ultimately several
notices were exchanged between the parties.
The appellants claimed a
refund of rupees fifty lakhs with interest, while the respondents
wanted to forfeit the earnest money for non-payment of further
instalments as agreed by the parties. The appellants filed a complaint
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 26.8.2010.
D. As the respondents came to know about filing of the complaint
they sold the suit property to one Ms. Nanhi J. Walia on 23.10.2010.
E. In the complaint case, evidence of the complainant and his
witnesses were recorded in November, 2010 and being satisfied, the
learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 6.12.2010 for the
offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
F. All the shares of other co-sharers of the said respondent Nos. 1
& 2 were also sold on 23.2.2011 to Ms. Nanhi J. Walia.
G. Aggrieved, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint qua them on the ground
that there had been a partition between the parties (co-sharers) and
so far as the application for seeking permission to raise the Club
House on the suit land was concerned, it had not been signed by the
said respondents/applicants, rather their signatures had been forged
by the co-sharers.
H. The High Court considered the case of both sides and ultimately
quashed the criminal proceedings qua the said respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Hence, this appeal
3. We have heard Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants, Shri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for respondent
Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri Arjun Garg, learned counsel for the State and
have also gone through the record of the case.
4. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the property
belonged not only to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, but they were the
owners alongwith respondent Nos.3 and 4. The respondent No.3 has died
and respondent No.4 has been deleted from the array of parties by this
court earlier. There is ample evidence on record that the permission
had been sought and obtained from Municipal Corporation of Bhopal for
raising the construction of a Club House and the land in dispute had
been shown as vacant land for parking. It is too late for the
respondent Nos.1 & 2 to say that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 might have
forged their signatures for the reason that it is not their case in
the counter affidavit or even before the High Court that they had ever
raised any objection or filed any complaint before the police or any
competent court for forging their signatures by someone else on the
said application. More so, there are disputes regarding partition and
demarcation of shares between the respective parties. The sale deeds
are also on record that their shares have been sold not only by
respondent Nos.3 & 4 but also by respondent Nos.1 & 2 subsequently and
there is no land available today. No explanation could be furnished
by Mr. Prashant Kumar appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 as to why
this fact had not been brought to the notice of the court.
5. As the case raises a large number of disputed questions of fact,
we are of the considered opinion that there was no occasion for the
High Court to allow the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash
the criminal proceedings qua the said respondents.
6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned judgment and
order dated 15.3.2012 and allow the appeal. The learned trial court is
directed to proceed against the said respondents in accordance with
law.
.........................………………..J.
(DR. B.S.
CHAUHAN)
.............………………………J.
(S.A. BOBDE)
New Delhi,
December 17, 2013
