RAMA DEVIversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

                     [2010) 11 S.C.R. 486

A                           RAMA DEVI
                                 V.
                   STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1754 of 2010)
                      SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
B
          [ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.)

        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482- Quashing of
  complaint - A/legation of cheating - Complaint alleging that
C huge area of land was sold by the brother of vendor to different
  persons and accused having knowledge of previous sales
  purchased the land and in order to cheat the complainant sold
  the land to him - Magistrate took cognizance of offence -
  Petition for quashing of complaint and proceedings,
D dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: The materials
  on record showed that a link was not established between the
  vendor and the accused and in fact the accused herself felt
  cheated in the hands of the vendor - Complaint and the
  consequential proceedings quashed - Penal Code, 1860 -
E SS. 406, 420 465, 468, 120-8.

       A complaint was filed by respondent no.2 against the
  appellant under Sections 406, 420 465, 468, 120-B, IPC.
  The allegation in the complaint was that a huge area of
  land was sold by 'S' to different persons at different points
F of time by different sale deeds. 'P', the brother of 'S' sold
  a portion of the land to the appellant and the appellant
  purchased the land inspite of having knowledge that
  those lands had already been sold to others and, in order
  to cheat the complainant, she executed the sale deed in
G his favour ..
            '
        The magistrate took cognizance of the offences. The
    appellant filed petition for quashing the proceedings
    before the High Court, which was dismissed. The instant
H                               486
    RAMA DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.               487


appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court.     A

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: No link had at all been established between
the sale deeds executed by 'S' in respect of mutated
property and the appellant which could have given rise        B
to suspicion, if any, of a conspiracy between herself and
her vendor and his brother 'S', with the intention of
cheating respondent no.2. If respondent no.2 was
prejudiced by the fact that the appellant had executed a
sale deed in his favour in respect of a plot of land which    C
had already been the subject matter of a previous transfer,
he could at best question such transfer and claim
damages in respect thereof from the vendor of the
appellant by way of appropriate damages, but an action
in the criminal court would not lie in the absence of any     D
intention to cheat and/or defraud respondent no.2. If at
all respondent no.2 had any grievance in respect of the
sale deed which was executed in his favour by the
appellant, it could be against 'P' and not the appellant.
The veracity of the appellant's story that she was cheated    E
by her vendor 'P', may be gauged from the fact that after
having purchased the suit property from 'P' by a duly
registered deed of sale, she applied to the concerned
authority for mutation in her name and the property
continued to be mutated in her name till such time as she     F
transferred the same to respondent no.2. There was no
reason for the appellant to have obtained the sale deed
in her name from 'P' with the intention of cheating
respondent no.2. Therefore, the appellant cannot be
made responsible for the circumstances which followed         G
the isale effected by the appellant in favour of respondent
no.2 and the filing of such a criminal complaint was
nothing more than an attempt to pressurize the appellant
into making a settlement. The order passed by the High

                                                              H
    488       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A Court is set aside. Consequently, complaint and the
  proceedings initiated on the basis thereof are also
  quashed. [Paras 12, 13] [492-D-F]

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1754 of .2010.
8
        From the Judgment and Order dated .20.12.2006 of the
    High Court of Patna in CRLM No. 19975/2006.

          T. Mahipal for the Petitioner.
c       Gopal Singh, Chandan Kumar and Amit Pawan for the
    Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D         ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.

         2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
    dated 20th December, 2006, passed by the Patna High Court
    in Crl. Misc. No.19975 of 2006 dismissing the same.

E       3. The Respondent No.2, Birendra Kumar Sinha, filed a
   Complaint Case No.3714C of .2005 against the Appellant
   alleging that she had committed offences under Section 406,
   420, 465, 468, 120-8 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by
   executing a Deed of Sale in his favour, OT) 12th February, 2005,
F in respect of a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 5 Dhurs,
  ·pertaining to Survey No.235 in Khata No.3 of Mauza Dhelwan
   under Phulwarisharif P.S., District Patna, Bihar. According to
   the complainant, the boundary wall erected by him around the
   said plot was demolished and on inquiry, he came to know that
G one.Prabhu Singh, who had sold the land to the Appellant was
   the full brother of one Sita Ram Singh, who had earlier sold the
   entire area of Survey plot No.235 to different persons at
   differentpoints of time by different sale deeds. The complainant
   alleged that Prabhu Singh, the Appellant's vendor and brother
H
     RAMA DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.                    489
              [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
of Sita Ram Singh, had acted as an attesting witness in the         A
said Sale Deeds executed by Sita Ram Singh, which indicated
that inspite of having knowledge that Sita Ram Singh had sold
the lands in question to others, Rama Devi purchased the said
lands and in order to cheat the complainant, executed the Sale
Deed in his favour on 12th February, 2005.                          8

     4. On 28th February, 2006, the Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Patna, took cognizance of the alleged offences and
issued process only against the Appellant herein. Aggrieved
thereby, the Appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition        C
No.19975 of 2006 before the Patna High Court on 10th May,
2006, for quashing the cognizance taken as also the entire
proceedings in Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005 pending
before the said Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna. On
2oth December, 2006, the Patna High Court dismissed the
Appellant's aforesaid petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which     D
is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

     5. On behalf of the Appellant it was pointed out by Mr.
Nagendra Rai, learned Senior Advocate, that the learned
Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences complained          E
of on an erroneous appreciation of the material before him to
the effect that it was not disputed that the property in question
had earlier been sold by Sita Ram Singh, who was the brother
of the Appellant's vendor, and that the Appellant had attested
the said Sale Deed, which clearly indicated that the Appellant      F
had knowledge of the earlier sale and despite the same, had
not only executed the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant
but had also indicated that no other deed had been executed
in respect of the property which were free from all
encumbrances. Mr. Rai referred to the Sale Deeds which had          G
been referred to by the learned Magistrate, from which it would
be apparent that the Appellant was not an attesting witness to
any of the sale deeds. Mr. Rai also referred to the Sale Deed
executed by the Appellant in favour of the complainant to show
that Prabhu Singh was not an attesting witness in the said
                                                                    H
    490     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A   document either and the witnesses were : (1) Kedar Prasad
    Singh, (2) Nawal Kisahore and (3) Awadhesh Kumar.

         6. Mr. Rai submitted that since the very basis for the
    cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate was fallaciou<; and
    without any foundation, the High Court erred in dismissing the
8
    Appellant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that the
    cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate, as also the
    proceedings relating to the Complaint Case No.3714C of
    2005, were liable to be quashed.

C        7. Mr. Rai's submissions were strongly opposed on behalf
    of the Respondent No.2, Birendra Kumar Sinha. It was
    submitted that no case had been made out on behalf of the
    Appellant for interference with the order of the High Court
    impugned in this appeal. Mr. P.S. Mishra, learned Senior
D   Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.2, reiterated the
    submissions which were made before the High Court to the
    effect that Prabhu Singh, the Appellant's vendor, and his brother
    Sita Ram Singh had in conspiracy with each other sold away
    the entire lands comprising Survey Plot No.235 and that the
E   Appellant was also a party to such conspiracy. Mr. Mishra urged
    that despite being part of the conspiracy, the Appellant got
    Prabhu Singh to transfer the land in question to her and got her
    name mutated in the concerned jamabandi, which would be
    apparent from the inquiry report of the application for mutation
F   of Case No.650/7 Year 2001-02 Hulka No.7 dated 5th March,
    2002. From the said report, it would be crystal clear that the
    names of both Sita Ram Singh and Rama Devi were shown in
    the column for recording the name of the raiyat in respect of
    the jamabandi. Mr. Mishra submitted that the same would
G   indicate a deep-rooted conspiracy hatched by the said Sita
    Ram Singh and his brother Prabhu Singh and Rama Devi, to
    defraud and cheat the Respondent No.2 by executing a sale
    deed after obtaining the full consideration, despite having
    knowledge that the land in question had already been
    transferred earlier by Sita Ram Singh to another party.
H
     RAMA DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.                    491
              [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
     8. In addition to the above, Mr. Mishra denied the             A
genuineness of the Deed of Sale executed by Rama Devi in
favour of the Respondent No.2 in view of the observations
made by the High Court in its impugned order indicating that
Prabhu Singh, the Appellant's vendor had attested the sale
deed despite having full knowledge of the earlier transactions      B
in respect of the lands in question.

     9. Mr. Mishra submitted that the High Court had rightly held
that the question of genuineness of the documents and the
intention of the Appellant, Sita Ram Singh and Prabhu Singh         C
were required to be decided on evidence in the backdrop of
the conspiracy alleged by the Respondent No.2, which could
only be done by holding a full-fledged trial.

     10. Having considered the submissions made on behalf
of the respective parties and having considered the documents       D
placed before us and also the Courts below, we do not find any
substance in Mr. MisMra's submissions on behalf of the
Respondent No.2. From the materials produced before us, no
link has been established between Prabhu Singh and the
appellant. If at all the Respondent No.2 has any grievance in       E
respect of the sale deed which had been executed in his favour
by the Appellant, it could be against Prabhu Singh and not the
Appellant. If we were to accept Mr. Mishra's submissions, then
it was the Appellant Rama Devi who had been cheated by her
vendor, Prabhu Singh, who had sold her the property in              F
question, although, the same is alleged to have been the
subject matter of an earlier sale effected by his brother, Sita
Ram Singh. The veracity of the Appellant's story may be gauged
from the fact that after having purchased the suit property from
Prabhu Singh by a duly registered deed of sale, she applied
                                                                    G
to the concerned authority of Phulwarisharif Circle for mutation
of her name in respect of the jamabandi in which Survey Plot
No.235 had been included and the property continued to be
mutated in her name till such time as she transferred the same
to the Respondent No.2. There can be no reason, as suggested
                                                                    H
    492       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [201 OJ 11 S.C.R.


A by Mr. Mishra, for the Appellant to have obtained the sale deed
  in her name from Prabhu Singh with the intention of cheating
  the Respondent No.2. In fact, no link had at all been established
  between the sale deeds executed by Sita Ram Singh in
  respect of mutated property and the Appellant which could have
B given rise to suspicion, if any, of a conspiracy between herself
  and her vendor and his brother Sita Ram Singh, with the
  intention of cheating the Respondent No.2.

       11. If the Respondent No.2 has been prejudiced by the fact
C that the Appellant had executed a saledeed in his favour in
  respect of a plot of land which had already been the subject
  matter of .a previous transfer, he can at best question such
  transfer and claim damages in re~pect thereof from the vendor
  of the Appellant by way of appropriate damages, but an action
  in the Criminal Court would not lie in the absence of any
D intention to cheat and/or defraud the Respondent No.2.

       12. We, therefore, have no doubt in our minds that the
  Appellant, Rama Devi, cannot be made responsible for the.
  circumstances which followed the sale effected by the Appellant
E in favour of the Respondent No.2 and the filing of such a
  criminal complaint was nothing more than an attempt to
  pressurize the Appellant into making a settlement.

         13. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside 'the
    order passed by the High Court on 20th December, 2006, in
F   Crl. Misc. No.19975 of 2006, which has been impugned in this
    appeal. Consequently, Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005 and
    the proceedings initiated on the basis thereof by the Sub-
    Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, are also quashed.

G          14. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed.

    D.G.                                          Appeal allowed.