Full Judgment Text
Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023
[NON-REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023
Mukeem Ahmad & Anr. …Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The order dated 11.4.2019 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC has
been challenged by the Appellants. The prayer before the High
Court was for quashing the Case Crime No. 341 of 2018 dated
28.06.2018 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2023.05.22
16:32:12 IST
Reason:
Indian Penal Code and all subsequent proceedings thereto.
Page 1 of 6
Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023
2. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the
case came to be registered on a complaint filed by Aash Mohamad,
son of late Gulam Mohamad. It was registered as a result of an
application filed before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The allegation was that Nusarat Jahan, widow of Gulam Mohamad
had sold the property to the Appellants which she was not entitled to
sell as after the death of her husband Gulam Mohamad, she had
remarried.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants argued that he
purchased a piece of land from Nusarat Jahan widow of Gulam
Mohamad after payment of due consideration. The sale deed was
registered on 17.3.2017 for a total consideration of ₹ 14 lakhs. The
Appellants were not in the knowledge of any fact regarding the
dispute of the vendor in the family or that she had remarried after
the death of her husband thereby putting a scar on her right in the
property. In fact, the Appellants were surprised to know about all
these facts when they received notice in a Civil Suit No. 14/2017
filed by the complainant on 27.3.2017. After filing the civil suit,
they filed application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the
Magistrate on 29.5.2018 for registration of FIR on the basis of which,
the same was registered. It is the admitted case of the complainant
Page 2 of 6
Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023
that after the death of Gulam Mohamad, mutation of the land in
question was registered in the name of Nusarat Jahan on the basis of
which the land in question was sold by her to the appellants. In the
FIR, there are no allegations of cheating against the Appellants. The
allegations of cheating are only against Nusarat Jahan. In fact, on a
plain reading of the FIR, no case is made out against the appellants,
hence permitting the trial to continue would result in abuse of
process of Court especially when a civil suit filed by the complainant
more than a year before filing of application under Section 156(3)
CrPC, was already pending.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that whatever arguments have been raised by the
counsel for the appellants needs appreciation of facts. These are
factual aspects which are required to be gone into by the court after
recording of evidence. Chargesheet has already been submitted.
Filing of civil suit as such has not been denied. He further submitted
that there is no error in the order passed by the High Court. All the
arguments raised have been considered threadbare.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper book.
Page 3 of 6
Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023
6. The facts of the case are very well narrated in the
impugned FIR which has been registered on the basis of an
application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) CrPC. It is
stated therein that father of the complainant and husband of
Nusarat Jahan, late Gulam Mohamad was owner in possession of
agricultural land bearing khata no. 462, khasra no. 141 measuring
2.9680 hectare and khasra no. 142 measuring 0.2940 hectare, total
area measuring 3.2620 hectares, situated in Village Asara, Pargana
and Tehnsil Baraut, District Bagpat. The said land was ancestral
property of late Gulam Mohamad. The complainant was born to the
first wife of late Gulam Mohamad, namely, Jaibunisha. After her
death, Gulam Mohamad married Nusarat Jahan, sister of late
Jaibunisha. Late Gulam Mohamad died about seven years before
filing of the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. After the death
of Gulam Mohamad, the property devolved upon his legal heirs,
namely, Aash, Avesh, Sameer and Nusarat Jahan. Mutation was also
entered in the revenue records accordingly. Nusarat Jahan
remarried to Sajid. Out of the land inherited by her, she sold 0.3372
hectare of land to Salauddin, s/o Shyamu by registered sale deed
and also got mutation effected. It is alleged in the complaint that on
remarriage of Nusarat Jahan after the death of Gulam Mohamad, her
Page 4 of 6
Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023
relationship with the family had severed and she could not inherit
any ancestral property left by late Gulam Mohamad. It is further
alleged that Nusarat Jahan, taking benefit of mutation of inheritance
in her favour, sold 0.3305 hectares of land vide sale deed dated
24.10.2016 in favour of the Appellants for a total sale consideration
of ₹ 14 lakhs. This is the entire narration of facts mentioned by the
complainant in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC as a
consequence of which, FIR was registered.
7. 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 ownership at the
time of registration of sale deed in their favour. It is the admitted
case of the complainant that Gulam Mohamad died about seven
years before the registration of FIR. Mutation of inheritance was
entered in the revenue records immediately after his death. This
must be in the knowledge of other legal heirs of late Gulam
Mohamad. Despite their knowledge of the fact that Nusarat Jahan
had remarried, they did not take any steps to get the mutation
changed in case she was not entitled to inherit any property. At the
time of hearing, nothing was pointed out to show that on the date of
Page 5 of 6
Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023
registration of sale deed, property in question which was purchased
by the Appellants was not recorded in the name of Nusarat Jahan. 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.
8. In the aforesaid factual matrix, and on plain reading of the
FIR, in our opinion no case is made out against the Appellants.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order
dated 11.4.2019 passed by the High Court is set aside. Case Crime
No. 341 of 2018 dated 28.06.2018 registered under Sections 420,
467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code registered against the
Appellants and all subsequent proceedings thereto qua the
Appellants only are quashed.
_____________, J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
____________, J.
(Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi
May 09, 2023.
// NR, PM //
Page 6 of 6