- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ashfaq Ahmed Quereshi & Anr. v. Namrata Chopra & Ors. S
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants entered into an agreement on 26 November 2009 to purchase 1.10 acres out of a 2.20-acre parcel that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to own. The appellants paid ₹50 lakh as earnest money toward a total consideration of ₹1,50,93,540. The sale deed was never executed because, according to the appellants, the respondents failed to complete the necessary formalities. Subsequently the appellants discovered that the respondents, together with other co-sharers (respondent Nos. 3 and 4), had earlier obtained municipal permission (27 March 2006) to construct a club house on part of the land and designated the disputed portion as parking space.
Alleging deceit, the appellants sought return of the earnest money with interest, while the respondents proposed to forfeit that amount. On 26 August 2010 the appellants filed a private criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate on 6 December 2010 took cognizance for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Pending criminal proceedings, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sold the suit property to one Ms. Nanhi J. Walia on 23 October 2010, and the remaining co-sharers executed further sale deeds on 23 February 2011. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 then petitioned the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 482 Cr.P.C., asserting that their signatures on the municipal application were forged and that a partition absolved them of liability. By order dated 15 March 2012 the High Court quashed the criminal case against them alone. The present appeal challenges that High Court order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was justified in quashing criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite the existence of contested questions of fact.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The respondents misrepresented ownership and failed to disclose that the disputed land was earmarked for parking in a sanctioned club-house plan, thereby inducing the appellants to pay ₹50 lakh.
- The respondents subsequently disposed of the property in favour of a third party after learning of the criminal complaint, reinforcing the allegation of fraudulent intent.
- Given these facts, the criminal case involves triable issues that cannot be resolved in a Section 482 proceeding.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2's Arguments
- They contended that a partition had occurred among co-sharers, and they bore no responsibility for the municipal application showing the land as parking space.
- They alleged that their signatures on the application for construction of the club house were forged by other co-sharers, negating any element of deceit on their part.
- On these premises, they requested quashing of the complaint to prevent abuse of the court's process.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that documentary evidence established joint ownership of the property by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 together with the other co-sharers. Municipal records confirmed that permission for construction of a club house had been obtained and that the disputed land was shown as vacant parking space. The Court found it significant that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 never lodged any protest, police complaint, or court proceeding alleging forgery of their signatures, either in their counter-affidavit before the High Court or elsewhere.
Additionally, the respondents had themselves executed sale deeds for their shares, and no land remained available, facts not disclosed to the High Court. These circumstances created “a large number of disputed questions of fact,” making summary quashing inappropriate. The Court concluded that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by evaluating contested factual matters that should be examined at trial.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 15 March 2012 and restored the criminal proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Implications: The respondents must now face trial on the Section 420 IPC charge. The decision underscores the principle that disputed factual issues ordinarily preclude exercise of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. No new legal precedent was established beyond this reaffirmation of settled principles.
B.S Chauhan, J.:—This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.Cr.C No. 8882/2011, by which the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C’).
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. The appellants entered into an agreement for sale of land admeasuring 1.10 acres of land out of 2.20 acres of total land on 26.11.2009 which had been claimed by the said respondents 1 & 2 to be of their exclusive ownership and for that appellants paid a sum of rupees fifty lakhs to the said respondents as earnest money out of the consideration of Rs. 1,50,93,540/-.
B. The sale deed could not be executed as the appellants did not make the payment for the reason that the said respondents did not complete the legal formalities for transferring the land. Later on, the appellants came to know that the said respondent Nos. 1 & 2 alongwith other co-sharers had got permission dated 27.3.2006 from the Municipal Corporation of Bhopal for construction of the Club House on the part of the said land and the subject matter of agreement to sell had been shown therein as open land for parking purposes. The Club House has already been constructed on the land and the suit land is to be used only for parking purpose.
C. After realizing that the appellants got cheated, there had been claims and counter claims between the parties and ultimately several notices were exchanged between the parties. The appellants claimed a refund of rupees fifty lakhs with interest, while the respondents wanted to forfeit the earnest money for non-payment of further instalments as agreed by the parties. The appellants filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C on 26.8.2010
D. As the respondents came to know about filing of the complaint they sold the suit property to one Ms. Nanhi J. Walia on 23.10.2010
E. In the complaint case, evidence of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded in November, 2010 and being satisfied, the learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 6.12.2010 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
F. All the shares of other co-sharers of the said respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were also sold on 23.2.2011 to Ms. Nanhi J. Walia.
G. Aggrieved, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the complaint qua them on the ground that there had been a partition between the parties (co-sharers) and so far as the application for seeking permission to raise the Club House on the suit land was concerned, it had not been signed by the said respondents/applicants, rather their signatures had been forged by the co-sharers.
H. The High Court considered the case of both sides and ultimately quashed the criminal proceedings qua the said respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Hence, this appeal
3. We have heard Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri Arjun Garg, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the record of the case.
4. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the property belonged not only to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, but they were the owners alongwith respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent No. 3 has died and respondent No. 4 has been deleted from the array of parties by this court earlier. There is ample evidence on record that the permission had been sought and obtained from Municipal Corporation of Bhopal for raising the construction of a Club House and the land in dispute had been shown as vacant land for parking. It is too late for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to say that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 might have forged their signatures for the reason that it is not their case in the counter affidavit or even before the High Court that they had ever raised any objection or filed any complaint before the police or any competent court for forging their signatures by someone else on the said application. More so, there are disputes regarding partition and demarcation of shares between the respective parties. The sale deeds are also on record that their shares have been sold not only by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 but also by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 subsequently and there is no land available today. No explanation could be furnished by Mr. Prashant Kumar appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2 as to why this fact had not been brought to the notice of the court.
5. As the case raises a large number of disputed questions of fact, we are of the considered opinion that there was no occasion for the High Court to allow the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash the criminal proceedings qua the said respondents.
6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 15.3.2012 and allow the appeal. The learned trial court is directed to proceed against the said respondents in accordance with law.
Alert