REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1754 OF 2010

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.1644 of 2007)

RAMA DEVI               … APPELLANT        Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment  

and order dated 20th December, 2006, passed by the  

Patna High Court in Crl. Misc. No.19975 of 2006  

dismissing the same.

3. The  Respondent  No.2,  Birendra  Kumar  Sinha,  

filed a Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005 against  

the  Appellant  alleging  that  she  had  committed  

offences under Section 406, 420, 465, 468, 120-B  

of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by executing a  

Deed  of  Sale  in  his  favour,  on  12th February,  

2005, in respect of a plot of land measuring 1  

Katha  5  Dhurs,  pertaining  to  Survey  No.235  in  

Khata No.3 of Mauza Dhelwan under Phulwarisharif  

P.S., District Patna, Bihar.  According to the  

complainant,  the  boundary  wall  erected  by  him  

around  the  said  plot  was  demolished  and  on  

inquiry, he came to know that one Prabhu Singh,  

who had sold the land to the Appellant was the  

full  brother  of  one  Sita  Ram  Singh,  who  had  

earlier  sold  the  entire  area  of  Survey  plot  

No.235 to different persons at different points  

of time by different sale deeds.  The complainant  

alleged that Prabhu Singh, the Appellant’s vendor  

and brother of Sita Ram Singh, had acted as an  

2

attesting witness in the said Sale Deeds executed  

by Sita Ram Singh, which indicated that inspite  

of having knowledge that Sita Ram Singh had sold  

the  lands  in  question  to  others,  Rama  Devi  

purchased the said lands and in order to cheat  

the complainant, executed the Sale Deed in his  

favour on 12th February, 2005.

4. On  28th February,  2006,  the  Sub-Divisional  

Judicial  Magistrate,  Patna,  took  cognizance  of  

the  alleged  offences  and  issued  process  only  

against the Appellant herein.  Aggrieved thereby,  

the  Appellant  filed  Criminal  Miscellaneous  

Petition No.19975 of 2006 before the Patna High  

Court  on  10th May,  2006,  for  quashing  the  

cognizance taken as also the entire proceedings  

in Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005 pending before  

the  said  Sub-Divisional  Judicial  Magistrate,  

Patna.  On 20th December, 2006, the Patna High  

Court  dismissed  the  Appellant’s  aforesaid  

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is the  

3

subject  matter  of  challenge  in  the  present  

appeal.

5. On behalf of the Appellant it was pointed out  

by  Mr.  Nagendra  Rai,  learned  Senior  Advocate,  

that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance  

of  the  offences  complained  of  on  an  erroneous  

appreciation of the material before him to the  

effect that it was not disputed that the property  

in question had earlier been sold by Sita Ram  

Singh,  who  was  the  brother  of  the  Appellant’s  

vendor, and that the Appellant had attested the  

said Sale Deed, which clearly indicated that the  

Appellant had knowledge of the earlier sale and  

despite the same, had not only executed the Sale  

Deed in favour of the complainant but had also  

indicated that no other deed had been executed in  

respect of the property which were free from all  

encumbrances.  Mr. Rai referred to the Sale Deeds  

which  had  been  referred  to  by  the  learned  

Magistrate, from which it would be apparent that  

4

the Appellant was not an attesting witness to any  

of the sale deeds.  Mr. Rai also referred to the  

Sale Deed executed by the Appellant in favour of  

the complainant to show that Prabhu Singh was not  

an attesting witness in the said document either  

and the witnesses were : (1) Kedar Prasad Singh,  

(2) Nawal Kisahore and (3) Awadhesh Kumar.   

6. Mr. Rai submitted that since the very basis  

for  the  cognizance  taken  by  the  learned  

Magistrate  was  fallacious  and  without  any  

foundation, the High Court erred in dismissing  

the  Appellant’s  application  under  Section  482  

Cr.P.C.  and  that  the  cognizance  taken  by  the  

learned  Magistrate,  as  also  the  proceedings  

relating to the Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005,  

were liable to be quashed.   

7. Mr. Rai’s submissions were strongly opposed  

on behalf of the Respondent No.2, Birendra Kumar  

Sinha.  It was submitted that no case had been  

made  out  on  behalf  of  the  Appellant  for  

5

interference  with  the  order  of  the  High  Court  

impugned  in  this  appeal.   Mr.  P.S.  Mishra,  

learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  for  the  

Respondent No.2, reiterated the submissions which  

were made before the High Court to the effect  

that Prabhu Singh, the Appellant’s vendor, and  

his brother Sita Ram Singh had in conspiracy with  

each other sold away the entire lands comprising  

Survey  Plot  No.235  and  that  the  Appellant  was  

also a party to such conspiracy. Mr. Mishra urged  

that despite being part of the conspiracy, the  

Appellant got Prabhu Singh to transfer the land  

in question to her and got her name mutated in  

the concerned jamabandi, which would be apparent  

from the inquiry report of the application for  

mutation of Case No.650/7 Year 2001-02 Hulka No.7  

dated 5th March, 2002.   From the said report, it  

would be crystal clear that the names of both  

Sita Ram Singh and Rama Devi were shown in the  

column for recording the name of the raiyat in  

respect of the jamabandi.  Mr. Mishra submitted  

6

that  the  same  would  indicate  a  deep-rooted  

conspiracy hatched by the said Sita Ram Singh and  

his  brother  Prabhu  Singh  and  Rama  Devi,  to  

defraud  and  cheat  the  Respondent  No.2  by  

executing a sale deed after obtaining the full  

consideration, despite having knowledge that the  

land  in  question  had  already  been  transferred  

earlier by Sita Ram Singh to another party.   

8. In addition to the above, Mr. Mishra denied  

the genuineness of the Deed of Sale executed by  

Rama Devi in favour of the Respondent No.2 in  

view of the observations made by the High Court  

in  its  impugned  order  indicating  that  Prabhu  

Singh, the Appellant’s vendor had attested the  

sale deed despite having full knowledge of the  

earlier transactions in respect of the lands in  

question.

9. Mr. Mishra submitted that the High Court had  

rightly held that the question of genuineness of  

the documents and the intention of the Appellant,  

7

Sita Ram Singh and Prabhu Singh were required to  

be decided on evidence in the backdrop of the  

conspiracy alleged by the Respondent No.2, which  

could  only  be  done  by  holding  a  full-fledged  

trial.   

10. Having  considered  the  submissions  made  on  

behalf  of  the  respective  parties  and  having  

considered  the  documents  placed  before  us  and  

also  the  Courts  below,  we  do  not  find  any  

substance in Mr. Mishra’s submissions on behalf  

of  the  Respondent  No.2.   From  the  materials  

produced before us, no link has been established  

between Prabhu Singh and the Respondent No.2.  If  

at all the Respondent No.2 has any grievance in  

respect of the sale deed which had been executed  

in  his  favour  by  the  Appellant,  it  could  be  

against Prabhu Singh and not the Appellant.  If  

we were to accept Mr. Mishra’s submissions, then  

it  was  the  Appellant  Rama  Devi  who  had  been  

cheated by her vendor, Prabhu Singh, who had sold  

8

her the property in question, although, the same  

is alleged to have been the subject matter of an  

earlier sale effected by his brother, Sita Ram  

Singh.  The veracity of the Appellant’s story may  

be  gauged  from  the  fact  that  after  having  

purchased the suit property from Prabhu Singh by  

a duly registered deed of sale, she applied to  

the concerned authority of Phulwarisharif Circle  

for  mutation  of  her  name  in  respect  of  the  

jamabandi in which Survey Plot No.235 had been  

included and the property continued to be mutated  

in her name till such time as she transferred the  

same  to  the  Respondent  No.2.  There  can  be  no  

reason,  as  suggested  by  Mr.  Mishra,  for  the  

Appellant to have obtained the sale deed in her  

name  from  Prabhu  Singh  with  the  intention  of  

cheating the Respondent No.2.  In fact, no link  

had  at  all  been  established  between  the  sale  

deeds executed by Sita Ram Singh in respect of  

mutated property and the Appellant which could  

have  given  rise  to  suspicion,  if  any,  of  a  

9

conspiracy between herself and her vendor and his  

brother  Sita  Ram  Singh,  with  the  intention  of  

cheating the Respondent No.2.   

11. If the Respondent No.2 has been prejudiced by  

the fact that the Appellant had executed a sale  

deed in his favour in respect of a plot of land  

which had already been the subject matter of a  

previous transfer, he can at best question such  

transfer  and  claim  damages  in  respect  thereof  

from  the  vendor  of  the  Appellant  by  way  of  

appropriate  damages,  but  an  action  in  the  

Criminal Court would not lie in the absence of  

any  intention  to  cheat  and/or  defraud  the  

Respondent No.2.

12. We, therefore, have no doubt in our minds  

that  the  Appellant,  Rama  Devi,  cannot  be  made  

responsible for the circumstances which followed  

the sale effected by the Appellant in favour of  

the  Respondent  No.2  and  the  filing  of  such  a  

criminal  complaint  was  nothing  more  than  an  

10

attempt to pressurize the Appellant into making a  

settlement.  

13. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting  

aside the order passed by the High Court on 20th  

December, 2006, in Crl. Misc. No.19975 of 2006,  

which  has  been  impugned  in  this  appeal.  

Consequently, Complaint Case No.3714C of 2005 and  

the proceedings initiated on the basis thereof by  

the  Sub-Divisional  Judicial  Magistrate,  Patna,  

are also quashed.   

14. The  appeal,  therefore,  succeeds  and  is  

allowed.  

…………………………………………J.                               (ALTAMAS KABIR)

…………………………………………J.                              (A.K. PATNAIK)

New Delhi Dated : 14.09.2010

11