Execution of sale deeds to defeat civil decrees constitutes prima facie cheating warranting further inquiry.

The respondent, Laljiram, obtained a civil decree on 30.11.2016 declaring him the owner of a specific property

Subsequently, Petitioner No. 1 (Amribai) executed sale deeds for the same property in favor of her son, Petitioner No. 2 (Bansilal), on 02.05.2017 and 01.06.2017

Petitioners No. 3 and 4 signed as witnesses despite knowledge of the civil court judgment

Laljiram filed a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 120-B, and 471 of the IPC

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) dismissed the complaint on 08.08.2017, classifying the dispute as purely civil

On revision, the Sessions Judge partially modified the JMFC's order, directing the trial court to take cognizance under Section 420 of the IPC

The petitioners moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to set aside the Revisional Court's order

1. Whether the Revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence

2. Whether the execution of sale deeds for a property after an adverse civil title decree prima facie constitutes an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC

The court primarily applied Sections 397 and 398 of the CrPC, which define the revisionary powers of the High Court and Sessions Judge to examine the legality and propriety of inferior court orders and to direct "further inquiry" into dismissed complaints

It relied on the precedent in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751, which clarifies that executing a deed for property one does not own does not constitute "forgery" unless there is impersonation, but may constitute cheating

Further, it applied Rajendra Rajoriya v. Jagat Narain Thapak (2018) 17 SCC 234, establishing that a Revisional Court’s direction to a Magistrate to proceed with a complaint after setting aside a dismissal is a remand for "further inquiry" and does not amount to the Revisional Court taking cognizance itself

The High Court observed that the petitioners were fully aware of the civil court judgment dated 30.11.2016 declaring the respondent as the owner

Despite this, the execution of sale deeds to a family member (Petitioner No. 2) indicated a prima facie intention to defraud the respondent and deprive him of the "fruits of litigation"

The court noted that while the JMFC correctly identified that no forgery occurred (as there was no impersonation per Mohd. Ibrahim), it erred in failing to see the element of cheating

Regarding jurisdiction, the court reasoned that the Sessions Judge did not "take" cognizance but rather identified a legal error in the JMFC's dismissal and remanded the matter for the trial court to proceed according to law

The court concluded that such a remand falls within the scope of Section 398 of the CrPC

The court upheld the remand but clarified that the Magistrate must conduct the "further inquiry" independently and apply his own mind to the complaint without being influenced by the observations made in the revisional or High Court orders