NEW DELHI: When there is a civil dispute over the title of a property, the act of setting criminal law in motion, two years after filing of the suits amounts to nothing but abuse of the process of law, the Supreme Court has said.
"If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said.
SC Rules on FIR Abuse in Civil Property Disputes: Key Takeaways
The court allowed an appeal by Maharashtra Gomantak Party leader and Goa MLA Jit Vinayak Arolkar and quashed an FIR lodged on October 23, 2023 against him for cheating.
He was alleged to have sold a property at Pernem in Goa allegedly without consent of all the legal heirs of co-owners.
His counsel contended the FIR was mala fide since he acted as the constituted attorney of Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar, the vendors under the sale deeds. He said the appellant had published a public notice calling for objections from any interested party concerning the subject property before the sale deeds.
Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Goa MLA Jit Arolkar Over Property Sale
The complainant, a resident of USA, submitted that merely because civil suits were pending, that was no ground to quash the criminal proceedings as the conduct of a party may amount to an offence and may also give rise to civil claim.
The appellant tried to dishonestly misappropriate the property belonging to him and sold it to third parties, he claimed.
In its judgment on January 6, 2025, the bench, however, said even after taking the complaint as correct, the offence of cheating under Section 415 of IPC was not made out against the appellant.
"Moreover, the complaint was filed for the first time after a time gap of two years from the date of institution of the civil suits," the court said.
The court also pointed out the complainant suppressed the fact that civil suits were already filed in which applications for temporary injunction were made.
The court allowed the appeal against Bombay High Court order of March 1, 2023, which had declined to quash the FIR.
In the case, the bench said there was no allegation that the appellant deceived the complainant to transfer or deliver the subject property.
Going by the facts of the matter, the bench said it is impossible to understand how the appellant deceived the complainant and how the act of execution of sale deeds by the appellant caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to him in body, mind, reputation or property.
