AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
By this application, the applicant is seeking quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.989/2018 registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offence under Section 420 read with 34 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing chargesheet No.211/2021 and RCC No.4182/2021 pending before learned JMFC, Court No.7, Nagpur.
The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) on allegations that he is running a business in Madhya Pradesh. In the year 2002, he has decided to form “Deepak Gruhnirman Sanstha” with an intent to purchase lands and sell the same by demarcating plots. He purchased 1.58 HR land from one Laxman Mahadeorao Kantode and his family members. Thereafter, said Laxman Mahadeorao Kantode, through the complainant, has sold his share i.e. 1.08 HR land to “Bandhu Gruhnirman Sahakari Sanstha” acting through its Secretary Sanjay Thumdeo Hulke by registered sale deed. The complainant is also a Member of said “Bandhu Gruhnirman Sahakari Sanstha.” In the year 2007, the complainant demarcated the layout in 1.08 HR out of total land 2.168 HR and sold 89 plots and also given Notarized Possession Letters to the respective plot purchasers. Some of plot purchasers took the possession of their respective plots by erecting cement poles and compound walls and also raised huts on their respective plots. In the year 2012, he came to know that the said Society has not mutated the sold lands in the Government Records. On 22.10.2012, Sanjay Hulke, the Secretary of the Society, has moved an application for mutation. It is further alleged that, the Tahsildar issued Notice to Laxman Mahadeorao Kantode and that time, said Laxman Mahadeorao Kantode came to know that his name is yet to be mutated in 7/12 extract. Thereafter, Laxman Mahadeorao Kantode changed his mind and raised objection for mutation and demanded Rs.5.00 lacs extra and told that he will withdraw the objection if the amount if paid. Between 1.2.2007 to 15.6.2017, said Laxman Mahadeorao Kantode had tried to sell the land of the said Society to various persons. It is alleged that the applicant has purchased the land from Laxman Mahadeorao Kantode without cancelling the earlier statement.
On the basis of the said report, the police have registered the crime against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even accepting the allegations as it is, no criminal offence is made out against the applicant as only a question arises as to the applicant is bona fide purchaser or not. It is civil dispute, which can be addressed before the Civil Court and, therefore, no criminal offence is made out to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. An intention since inception is required. There is no investigation on the point that the applicant was having knowledge about the earlier transaction and, thereafter, he has purchased the said property. Thus, the intention since inception is absent in the present case and, therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.
Per contra, learned APP for the State has strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that recital of the FIR as well as investigation papers discloses that the applicant was having knowledge about the earlier transaction and he entered into the said transaction.
In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.
On hearing both sides and perusing the entire investigation papers, it reveals that role of the applicant is that he is only a purchaser.
Whether the applicant is a bona fide purchaser or not, can be considered by the Civil Court if the dispute is raised before the Civil Court.
As far as constitution of offence under Section 420 of the IPC is concerned, there has to be deception of any person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission or fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
Thus, a plain reading of the said Section reveals that “intention since inception” is required to constitute the offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
It has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine 759, that, “it is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the Police Officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the CrPC. While exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. As noted above, the inherent jurisdiction under the Section, although wide, yet should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist.”
In view of the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and if facts and circumstances of the present case are taken into consideration, admittedly, the applicant is only purchaser. Whether he is a bona fide purchaser or not, is a matter of evidence, if any, if the issue is raised before the Civil Court.
As far as the offence is concerned, intention since inception is absent in the present case as from the investigation papers, nothing is on record to show that he was carrying the intention since inception and with that intention he purchased the land.
Thus, no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Continuation of the proceeding against him would be abuse of process of law.
In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
The criminal application is allowed.
FIR in connection with Crime No.989/2018 registered with non-applicant No.1 police station for offence under Section 420 read with 34 of the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing chargesheet No.211/2021 and RCC No.4182/2021 pending before learned JMFC, Court No.7, Nagpur are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of present applicant Sunil s/o Rekchandra Khobragade.
Application is disposed of.