Jharkhand HC Quashes Land-Sale Fraud Case Against Wife, Keeps It Against Husband Who Took ₹3 Lakh And Allegedly Misrepresented Seller’s Title

The complainant alleged that petitioner No. 1, Ramesh Ojha, and co-accused Praveen Raut represented that Raut had transferable title to ten kathas of land, agreed to sell it for ₹13,00,000, and received ₹3,00,000 from the complainant’s mother, with the balance paid to Raut.

The complainant later learned that the land was gifted land and alleged that the accused did not return the money; meanwhile, petitioner No. 2, Madhu Devi, had the land transferred to her and sold it to another person.

On the complaint, solemn-affirmation statement, and inquiry evidence, the Magistrate found a prima facie case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.

Petitioner No. 1 relied on disputed affidavits said to have been sworn by the complainant; the complainant denied their authenticity.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process, but that jurisdiction does not permit a mini-trial or assessment of disputed evidence at the quashing stage.

Relying on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820, the Court reiterated that the High Court must not appreciate the evidence as if deciding the case at trial.

It also relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta, (2004) 2 Supreme 501, for the principle that the veracity of an accused’s defence evidence cannot ordinarily be determined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court considered whether the complaint allegations made out a prima facie basis for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC.

As to petitioner No. 1, the complaint specifically alleged that he represented Raut as having clear and transferable title, and the undisputed receipt of ₹3,00,000 from the complainant’s mother remained unexplained by him.

His reliance on affidavits whose authenticity was disputed raised a matter for trial, not a basis for quashing the proceeding through a determination of their veracity under Section 482 CrPC.

As to petitioner No. 2, the complaint alleged only that she introduced Raut and later obtained and sold the land; it did not allege that she received money, deceived the complainant, or committed forgery.

Even if the land-transfer allegation were accepted, the Court held that it disclosed no offence against her in this case, including with the aid of Section 120B IPC.

It quashed the proceeding arising from P.C.R. Case No. 69 of 2022 and the Magistrate’s order dated 23 December 2022 only insofar as petitioner No. 2, Madhu Devi, was concerned.

The petition was allowed to that limited extent.