Summary
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR for cheating against the appellant, who as attorney of two co-owners had executed sale deeds for their share in a property. Taking the complaint as true, the complainant (another claimed co-owner, not a purchaser) was not deceived or induced by the appellant, the dispute was essentially civil, and lodging a criminal complaint two years after filing title suits, while suppressing those suits, was an abuse of process.
Issues
- Whether the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, made out the offence of cheating under Section 415 of the IPC against the appellant, who executed sale deeds on behalf of co-owners.
- Whether a third party who is not the purchaser under a sale deed can allege cheating merely because the vendor allegedly sold more than his share.
- Whether setting criminal law in motion two years after instituting civil suits over title, while concealing those suits, amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
Provisions considered
- Section 415, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court set out the definition of cheating and found its ingredients absent: the appellant did not deceive the complainant, did not purport to transfer the complainant's rights or act on his behalf, did not induce him to deliver any property, and his execution of the sale deeds caused no harm to the complainant within the section. (¶¶ 11, 12, 12.1, 13)
- Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860The FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420; since the ingredients of cheating under Section 415 were not made out, the FIR and proceedings were quashed as against the appellant. (¶¶ 1, 13, 14)
Held
- Where the grievance is that vendors holding only an undivided share sold the whole property, while the defence is that only the vendors' own right, title and interest was conveyed, the dispute between the parties is predominantly civil in nature. (¶¶ 8, 10)
- Following Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, a vendor who sells property he does not own may be accused of cheating by the purchaser who is defrauded, but a third party who is not the purchaser ordinarily cannot make such a complaint; here the purchasers had raised no grievance about the sale deeds. (¶ 12)
- Taking the complaint as correct, the offence of cheating was not made out: the appellant did not execute the sale deeds on behalf of the complainant or purport to transfer his rights, there was no allegation that he deceived the complainant into transferring or delivering property, and the execution of the deeds did not cause or threaten harm to the complainant in body, mind, reputation or property. (¶¶ 12.1, 13)
- When title was already in dispute in civil suits filed by the complainant, his act of setting criminal law in motion two years later, suppressing in the complaint the pendency of those suits and the applications for temporary injunction, amounted to an abuse of the process of law. (¶¶ 9, 13)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment dated 01.03.2023 set aside and FIR No. 177 of 2020 (Pernem Police Station, later transferred to the Special Investigation Team of the Economic Offences Cell) and all proceedings based on it quashed only as against the appellant; no adjudication made on the merits of the pending civil dispute.