AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These petitions have been instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the order dated 11.10.2011 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision proceedings, whereby the revisional court affirmed the order dated 06.11.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in Complaint Case No. 543/2009, taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners and issuing process against them. Since both the petitions arise out of the same complaint case, involve identical questions of fact and law, and challenge the same set of proceedings, they are being decided by this common judgment.
The factual matrix of the case, discloses that the property in dispute, namely Plot No. 691/2, situated at Subhash Nagar, Jabalpur, was originally owned by one Ramesh Singh Thakur. It is not in dispute that during the year 1976, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force, imposing statutory restrictions on transfer of land beyond the prescribed ceiling limits. The record further reveals that during the subsistence and operation of the said enactment, the original owner is alleged to have executed sale deeds in the year 1988 in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4 (complainants herein), transferring portions of the disputed land.
Subsequently, with the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the legal position governing such lands underwent a material transformation, and the land in question is stated to have reverted to the original owner. Thereafter, the present petitioners purchased the said property from the original owner, Ramesh Singh Thakur, by way of registered sale deeds executed in the year 2001, and their names were mutated in the revenue records in accordance with law.
The respondents/complainants challenged the mutation entries before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jabalpur, who, by order, cancelled the mutation in favour of the present petitioners. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur, who, upon detailed consideration, set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and held that since the Urban Land Ceiling Act was in force in the year 1988, the sale deeds executed in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4 were void ab initio, and consequently, the mutation in favour of the present petitioners was restored.
It is further borne out from the record that the respondents instituted a criminal complaint in the year 2004 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, alleging commission of offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and other purchasers. The learned Magistrate, upon recording the statements under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, proceeded to take cognizance and issued process against the petitioners vide order dated 06.11.2008. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in revision, however, the revisional court dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of cognizance.
It is also an admitted position on record that the respondents had instituted Civil Suit No. 58-A/2015 concerning the same subject matter of property dispute, which came to be dismissed in default on 12.02.2016. Furthermore, by order dated 12.07.2018 passed by this Court in the present proceedings, it has already been observed that the dispute appears to be of civil nature and the proceedings of the criminal complaint were stayed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the entire criminal prosecution is a clear abuse of process of law, as the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature arising out of competing claims over immovable property, and has been deliberately given a criminal colour. It is submitted that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers who have acquired the property through registered sale deeds from the original owner after repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and their title has been upheld by the competent revenue authority. It is further submitted that even if the entire allegations contained in the complaint are taken at their face value, no ingredients of the offences alleged are made out, inasmuch as there is no dishonest or fraudulent intention attributable to the petitioners at the inception of the transaction, nor is there any allegation of inducement or deception practiced by them.
Learned counsel has placed strong reliance upon judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devendra & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 495 , Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (2009) 8 SCC 715 , Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 124 , and Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, as well as the judgment of this Court in Neeraj Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. & Ors., MCRC No. 11362/2019 decided on 05.09.2023. It is contended that these judgments consistently lay down that where a dispute is essentially civil in nature, particularly relating to property transactions or contractual obligations, and where the necessary ingredients of criminal offences such as cheating or forgery are absent, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and the same deserves to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that a subsequent purchaser cannot be prosecuted for alleged irregularities in prior transactions and that mere execution of sale deeds or assertion of title does not constitute forgery or cheating in the absence of fraudulent intent.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced elaborate submissions contending that the entire prosecution is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the law, instituted with an oblique motive to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute arising out of competing claims over immovable property. It is submitted that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, having purchased the land from the original owner in the year 2001 through registered sale deeds, and their title stands fortified by the order of the competent revenue authority, namely the Commissioner, Jabalpur, who has categorically held that the earlier sale deeds executed in favour of the complainants in the year 1988 were void ab initio on account of statutory prohibition under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
It is further submitted that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged in the complaint, particularly cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery, are conspicuously absent. There is no allegation that the petitioners had any dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of entering into the transaction. The petitioners, being subsequent purchasers, cannot be attributed with any criminal liability in respect of transactions which took place prior in point of time between the complainants and the original owner.
Learned counsel has further contended that the complainants had already availed the civil remedy by instituting a civil suit with respect to the same property dispute, which itself demonstrates the civil nature of the controversy. The dismissal of the said suit in default further weakens the case of the complainants and indicates that the criminal proceedings have been resorted to as an afterthought to pressurize the petitioners.
It is also submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the present case would amount to abuse of the process of law, and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deserves to be exercised to secure the ends of justice.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/complainants has opposed the petitions and submitted that the learned Magistrate, upon due application of mind and after recording statements under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners. It is contended that the allegations in the complaint clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences, and at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out.
It is further contended that the petitioners, in collusion with other accused persons, have deliberately and fraudulently dealt with the property with full knowledge of the prior transactions in favour of the complainants, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainants and wrongful gain to themselves. The existence of parallel civil proceedings, it is argued, does not bar criminal prosecution when the allegations disclose ingredients of criminal offences.
Learned counsel has also submitted that the findings recorded by the revenue authorities are not conclusive for the purposes of criminal liability and cannot absolve the petitioners from prosecution. It is therefore urged that the petitions be dismissed and the petitioners be directed to face trial in accordance with law.
Heard the parties and perusal of the records. The legal position governing such situations is no longer res integra and has been authoritatively settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners.
In Devendra (supra), the Supreme Court has clearly held that where a dispute arises out of property transactions between parties and essentially pertains to civil rights, the initiation of criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC would not be justified unless the basic ingredients of such offences are satisfied. It was further held that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a weapon for settling civil disputes.
In Mohammed Ibrahim (supra), the Apex Court elaborately explained the concept of “false document” and held that mere execution of a sale deed by a person claiming title, even if such claim is disputed or incorrect, does not amount to forgery unless it is shown that the document was created dishonestly by impersonation or without authority. It was further held that a person who is not deceived cannot allege cheating, and that such disputes ordinarily give rise to civil liability.
In Vijay Kumar Ghai (supra) , the Supreme Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool of harassment in disputes which are essentially civil in nature and emphasized that multiple proceedings or belated criminal complaints in property disputes amount to abuse of process of Court.
In Rajiv Thapar (supra), the Supreme Court laid down the parameters for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that where the material on record clearly shows that the prosecution is untenable and continuation of proceedings would result in injustice, the High Court is duty bound to quash such proceedings at the threshold.
Further, this Court in Neeraj Shrivastava (supra) has reiterated that when the dispute between the parties arises out of contractual or commercial dealings and lacks the essential ingredients of criminal offences, particularly mens rea at inception, the proceedings deserve to be quashed as being an abuse of process.
Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the dispute between the parties arises out of competing claims over title to immovable property. The petitioners are subsequent purchasers who have acquired the property through registered sale deeds from the original owner, and their title has been upheld by the competent revenue authority. There is no material on record to suggest that the petitioners had any fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of purchase, nor is there any allegation that they induced the complainants to part with any property.
The allegations, even if accepted in entirety, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of cheating, forgery or criminal breach of trust. The dispute essentially pertains to validity of title and competing rights over property, which is a matter squarely falling within the domain of civil law. The fact that the complainants themselves had instituted a civil suit, which stood dismissed in default, further reinforces the civil nature of the dispute. The subsequent initiation of criminal proceedings appears to be a calculated attempt to exert pressure upon the petitioners.
This Court also finds that the present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down in Rajiv Thapar (supra) for quashing of proceedings, as the material on record clearly discloses that the allegations are predominantly civil in nature and continuation of criminal proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice.
This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has meticulously perused the entire material available on record, including the complaint, annexures, orders passed by the courts below.
At the outset, it is necessary to examine the nature of the dispute and the allegations levelled in the complaint. The entire genesis of the dispute lies in competing claims over the title and possession of immovable property, which was originally owned by Ramesh Singh Thakur. The complainants claim title on the basis of sale deeds executed in the year 1988, whereas the present petitioners claim title on the basis of subsequent sale deeds executed in the year 2001. The controversy thus essentially pertains to the validity and legal effect of these transactions.
The record clearly indicates that the sale deeds executed in favour of the complainants in the year 1988 were subject to the statutory restrictions imposed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The competent revenue authority, namely the Commissioner, Jabalpur, has already adjudicated upon this issue and has categorically held that the said sale deeds were void ab initio. This finding, though rendered in revenue proceedings, has a direct bearing on the civil rights of the parties and cannot be lightly brushed aside.
The petitioners, on the other hand, have purchased the property in the year 2001 after the repeal of the said Act, and their title has been recognized by the competent authority. There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioners had any fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of entering into the transaction. There is also no allegation that any inducement or deception was practiced by the petitioners upon the complainants.
The essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, require the existence of mens rea in the form of dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction. In the absence of such foundational allegations, the mere existence of a property dispute or rival claims over title cannot give rise to criminal liability.
The law is well settled that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a weapon for settling civil disputes or for exerting pressure upon the opposite party. Where the allegations in the complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence, the continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the law.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case squarely falls within the category of cases where the dispute is predominantly civil in nature, arising out of transactions relating to immovable property, and the criminal proceedings have been initiated to give a colour of criminality to what is essentially a civil dispute. The petitioners, being subsequent purchasers from the original owner, cannot be fastened with criminal liability in the absence of any specific allegations of fraudulent intent or active participation in any alleged offence.
In view of the foregoing analysis, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, this Court is of the unequivocal opinion that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the offences alleged in the complaint, and the continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. The order dated 11.10.2011 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision proceedings, as well as the order dated 06.11.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in Complaint Case No. 543/2009, taking cognizance against the petitioners and issuing process against them, are hereby quashed.