Supreme Court of India
Jit Vinayak Arolkar vs State Of Goa And Ors on 6 January, 2025
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka
2025 INSC 31
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 393 OF 2024
JIT VINAYAK AROLKAR …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF GOA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECT
1. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has
dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant for
quashing a First Information Report (for short, the
‘impugned FIR’) registered at the instance of the 4th
respondent for the offence punishable under Section 420
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).
2. The dispute pertains to the property known as
“CAPNIVORIL GUERA”, “CAPNIVORIL MOLLY” or “KAPNI
Signature Not Verified
VARIL GHERA” situated in Dhargalim Village, Pernem,
Digitally signed by
ASHISH KONDLE
Goa, which is described in the Land Registration Office of
Date: 2025.01.06
16:43:26 IST
Reason:
Bardez under No. 63 at pages 11V of book overleaf of B-
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024 Page 1 of 11
1(new) bearing Sy No. 481/0 (for short, ‘the subject
property’).
3. On 16th October 2018, the 4th respondent filed twelve
separate civil suits in the civil court in Goa, claiming a
declaration of his ownership in respect of the subject
property. In the suits filed by the 4th respondent, it was
contended that the subject property is a common and
undivided property in which the 4th respondent has an
undivided share, which he inherited from his father. The
appellant filed a written statement in the suit on 1st
September 2020 and claimed that the property was
originally owned by one Sacarama Sadassiva Natecar. On
23rd October 2020, the 4th respondent, through his
constituted attorney, filed a complaint with the
Superintendent of Police, North Goa District, alleging that
the appellant had sold a portion of the subject property
without the consent of all the legal heirs of both co-owners.
Based on the said complaint, the impugned FIR was
registered by the police. The appellant was granted
anticipatory bail by the sessions court vide order dated
10th February 2021 in connection with the impugned FIR.
On 23rd October 2021, the appellant filed a writ petition
before the High Court for quashing the FIR. By the
impugned judgment dated 1st March 2023, the High Court
dismissed the petition.
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024 Page 2 of 11
SUBMISSIONS
4. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant stated that the appellant is the constituted
attorney of Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar, the
vendors under the sale deeds subject matter of the
impugned FIR. He submitted that the 4th respondent in his
complaint had accepted co-ownership of the vendors in
respect of the subject property under the sale deeds.
Learned senior counsel submitted that a complaint was
filed by the 4th respondent more than two years after the
date of institution of the civil suit. Learned senior counsel
pointed out how Sacarama Sadassiva Natecar became the
owner of the subject property based on documents
executed in the years 1928 and 1929. He submitted that
Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar are the legal
representatives of Sacarama Sadassiva Natecar. He
submitted that both claimed a half share in the subject
property in view of the regime of the communion of assets
applicable in the State of Goa. He pointed out that, on 10th
May 2013, the appellant had published a public notice
calling for objections from any interested party concerning
the subject property.
5. He pointed out that the ingredients of the offence of
cheating under Section 415 of IPC were not made out. He
relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of R.K.
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024 Page 3 of 11
Vijayasarathy and Anr. v Sudha Seetharam and Anr.1.
He also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of
Mohd. Ibrahim v State of Bihar2. The submission of the
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that
the registration of the impugned FIR was mala fide. He
pointed out that the appellant, apart from being a
businessman, is an active member of the Maharashtra
Gomantak Party and is a Member of the Legislative
Assembly of the State of Goa.
6. Learned senior counsel representing the 4th
respondent submitted that the appellant tried to
dishonestly misappropriate the property belonging to the
4th respondent, who is a resident of the United States of
America, and sold the subject property to third parties. He
has done that with the knowledge that the 4th respondent
was a co-owner. He submitted that the supplementary
statement of the 4th respondent was recorded in the
impugned FIR. Due to Covid-19, the investigation could
not be carried out based on the impugned FIR. He relied
upon a decision of this Court in the case of M/s Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra and
Ors.3 and submitted that the investigation could not be
scuttled by interfering with the FIR at the initial stage of
the investigation. He submitted that an FIR is not an
1 (2019) 16 SCC 739
2 (2009) 8 SCC 751
3
(2021) 19 SCC 401
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024 Page 4 of 11
encyclopaedia that can disclose all facts and details of the
offence. He also pointed out that the consideration under
the sale deed has been transferred to the appellant and not
to the members of the Natekar family. He submitted that
merely because civil suits are pending, that is 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 claims. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the
case of Amit Kapoor v Ramesh Chander and Anr.4 in
this regard. The learned counsel would submit that an
opportunity may be granted to the police to complete the
investigation by upholding the order of the High Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Goa
supported the impugned judgment and order.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
8. We have carefully perused one of the sale deeds,
which is the subject matter of the impugned FIR. The sale
deeds are similar. The appellant signed the sale deed as
the constituted attorney of Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay
Natekar and also in his capacity as a confirming party. The
said power of attorney executed by Vidhya Natekar and
Sanjay Natekar in favour of the appellant contains a recital
that the executants, i.e., Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay
Natekar, are the co-owners of the subject property. The
4 (2012) 9 SCC 460
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024 Page 5 of 11
legal effect of the sale deeds which are the subject matters
of the impugned FIR is that the ownership rights of Vidhya
Natekar and Sanjay Natekar were transferred to the
purchasers.
9. It is pertinent to note that civil suits were filed by the
4th respondent in October 2018. In the suits, he claims to
be a co-owner or person with an undivided share in the
subject property. Two years after the institution of the said
suits, the constituted attorney of the 4th respondent filed a
complaint with the Superintendent of Police on 23rd
October 2020. In the complaint, she stated that the subject
property was originally owned by the predecessor of the 4th
respondent and Sadashiv Natekar. In paragraph 5 of the
complaint, the constituted attorney of the 4th respondent
stated thus:
“5. This vicious and malafide
exercise of deceit, forgery and land-
grabbing has been systematically and
high-handedly perpetrated by one
Mr. Jit Vinayak Arolkar who claims
to be the Power of Attorney holder
of legal heirs of Sadashiv Sakharam
Natekar. The said Sadashiv Natekar
was the co-owner of the said
property along with vaikunth
Rawloo Khalap. Thus, it is clear that,
the said property can in no way be
arbitrarily sold without the expressCriminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024 Page 6 of 11
consent of all the legal heirs of both
the Co-owners of the said property.”
(emphasis added)
It is pertinent to note that the constituted attorney of the
4th respondent has omitted to mention in the complaint
that two years before the filing of the complaint,
declaratory suits were filed by the 4th respondent, which
were pending. Interestingly, two years after the registration
of the FIR, on 13th October 2022, the 4th respondent filed
a supplementary complaint with the police alleging that
even the said Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar had also
committed an offence.
10. Thus, in short, the grievance of the 4th respondent is
that the vendors under the sale deeds had only an
undivided share in the subject property, and they could
not have sold the entire subject property under the sale
deeds. The contention of the appellant is that what is sold
is the right, title and interest of Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay
Natekar. Thus, the dispute between the parties is
predominantly a civil dispute.
11. Section 415, which defines cheating, reads thus:
“415. Cheating.—Whoever, by
deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any
person, or to consent that any person
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024 Page 7 of 11
shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived, and which act
or omission causes or is likely to
cause damage or harm to that person
in body, mind, reputation or property,
is said to “cheat”.
Explanation.—A dishonest
concealment of facts is a deception
within the meaning of this section.”
12. It is pertinent to note that the purchasers under the
sale deeds have not made any grievance about the sale
deeds. In the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v State of Bihar2, in
paragraphs 20 to 23, this Court held thus:
“20. When a sale deed is executed
conveying a property claiming
ownership thereto, it may be possible
for the purchaser under such sale deed
to allege that the vendor has cheated
him by making a false representation of
ownership and fraudulently induced
him to part with the sale consideration.
But in this case the complaint is not by
the purchaser. On the other hand, the
purchaser is made a co-accused.
21. It is not the case of the complainant
that any of the accused tried to deceive
him either by making a false orCriminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024 Page 8 of 11
misleading representation or by any
other action or omission, nor is it his
case that they offered him any
fraudulent or dishonest inducement to
deliver any property or to consent to
the retention thereof by any person or
to intentionally induce him to do or
omit to do anything which he would not
do or omit if he were not so deceived.
Nor did the complainant allege that the
first appellant pretended to be the
complainant while executing the sale
deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the first accused by the act of executing
sale deeds in favour of the second accused
or the second accused by reason of being
the purchaser, or the third, fourth and
fifth accused, by reason of being the
witness, scribe and stamp vendor in
regard to the sale deeds, deceived the
complainant in any manner.
22. As the ingredients of cheating as
stated in Section 415 are not found, it
cannot be said that there was an offence
punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419
or 420 of the Code.
A clarification
23. When we say that execution of a
sale deed by a person, purporting to
convey a property which is not his, as
his property, is not making a false
document and therefore not forgery, we
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024 Page 9 of 11
should not be understood as holding
that such an act can never be a criminal
offence. 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.”
(emphasis added)
12.1 In this case, it is impossible to understand how the
appellant deceived the 4th respondent and how the act of
execution of sale deeds by the appellant caused or was
likely to cause damage or harm to the 4th respondent in
body, mind, reputation or property. The appellant has not
purported to execute the sale deeds on behalf of the 4 th
respondent. He has not purported to transfer the rights of
the 4th respondent. There is no allegation that the appellant
deceived the 4th respondent to transfer or deliver the
subject property.
13. 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 by
the 4th respondent for the first time after a time gap of two
years from the date of institution of the civil suits. In the
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024 Page 10 of 11
complaint, he suppressed the fact that civil suits were
already filed in which applications for temporary
injunction were made. When there was a dispute over the
title, the act of the 4th respondent of setting in motion
criminal law two years after the date of filing of the suits
amounts to nothing but abuse of the process of law.
14. Considering the above, the appeal succeeds. The
impugned judgment and order dated 1st March 2023 is set
aside, and FIR No.177 of 2020 initially registered with
Pernem Police Station, Pernem in the State of Goa, and
now transferred to the Special Investigation Team of the
Economic Offences Cell, and proceedings based thereon
are hereby quashed and set aside only as against the
appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on the above
terms. We clarify that we have made no adjudication on
the merits of the pending civil dispute between the parties.
……………………..J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
……………………..J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
January 06, 2025
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024 Page 11 of 11