Mukeem Ahmad vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

[NON-REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023

Mukeem Ahmad & Anr. …Appellants

Versus

State of U.P. & Anr. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The order dated 11.4.2019 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC has

been challenged by the Appellants. The prayer before the High

Court was for quashing the Case Crime No. 341 of 2018 dated

28.06.2018 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Signature Not Verified Indian Penal Code and all subsequent proceedings thereto. Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2023.05.22 16:32:12 IST Reason: Page 1 of 6 Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023

2. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the

case came to be registered on a complaint filed by Aash Mohamad,

son of late Gulam Mohamad. It was registered as a result of an

application filed before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The allegation was that Nusarat Jahan, widow of Gulam Mohamad

had sold the property to the Appellants which she was not entitled to

sell as after the death of her husband Gulam Mohamad, she had

remarried.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants argued that he

purchased a piece of land from Nusarat Jahan widow of Gulam

Mohamad after payment of due consideration. The sale deed was

registered on 17.3.2017 for a total consideration of ₹14 lakhs. The

Appellants were not in the knowledge of any fact regarding the

dispute of the vendor in the family or that she had remarried after

the death of her husband thereby putting a scar on her right in the

property. In fact, the Appellants were surprised to know about all

these facts when they received notice in a Civil Suit No. 14/2017

filed by the complainant on 27.3.2017. After filing the civil suit,

they filed application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the

Magistrate on 29.5.2018 for registration of FIR on the basis of which,

the same was registered. It is the admitted case of the complainant

Page 2 of 6 Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023

that after the death of Gulam Mohamad, mutation of the land in

question was registered in the name of Nusarat Jahan on the basis of

which the land in question was sold by her to the appellants. In the

FIR, there are no allegations of cheating against the Appellants. The

allegations of cheating are only against Nusarat Jahan. In fact, on a

plain reading of the FIR, no case is made out against the appellants,

hence permitting the trial to continue would result in abuse of

process of Court especially when a civil suit filed by the complainant

more than a year before filing of application under Section 156(3)

CrPC, was already pending.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that whatever arguments have been raised by the

counsel for the appellants needs appreciation of facts. These are

factual aspects which are required to be gone into by the court after

recording of evidence. Chargesheet has already been submitted.

Filing of civil suit as such has not been denied. He further submitted

that there is no error in the order passed by the High Court. All the

arguments raised have been considered threadbare.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

paper book.

Page 3 of 6 Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023

6. The facts of the case are very well narrated in the

impugned FIR which has been registered on the basis of an

application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) CrPC. It is

stated therein that father of the complainant and husband of

Nusarat Jahan, late Gulam Mohamad was owner in possession of

agricultural land bearing khata no. 462, khasra no. 141 measuring

2.9680 hectare and khasra no. 142 measuring 0.2940 hectare, total

area measuring 3.2620 hectares, situated in Village Asara, Pargana

and Tehnsil Baraut, District Bagpat. The said land was ancestral

property of late Gulam Mohamad. The complainant was born to the

first wife of late Gulam Mohamad, namely, Jaibunisha. After her

death, Gulam Mohamad married Nusarat Jahan, sister of late

Jaibunisha. Late Gulam Mohamad died about seven years before

filing of the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. After the death

of Gulam Mohamad, the property devolved upon his legal heirs,

namely, Aash, Avesh, Sameer and Nusarat Jahan. Mutation was also

entered in the revenue records accordingly. Nusarat Jahan

remarried to Sajid. Out of the land inherited by her, she sold 0.3372

hectare of land to Salauddin, s/o Shyamu by registered sale deed

and also got mutation effected. It is alleged in the complaint that on

remarriage of Nusarat Jahan after the death of Gulam Mohamad, her

Page 4 of 6 Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023

relationship with the family had severed and she could not inherit

any ancestral property left by late Gulam Mohamad. It is further

alleged that Nusarat Jahan, taking benefit of mutation of inheritance

in her favour, sold 0.3305 hectares of land vide sale deed dated

24.10.2016 in favour of the Appellants for a total sale consideration

of ₹14 lakhs. This is the entire narration of facts mentioned by the

complainant in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC as a

consequence of which, FIR was registered.

7. A plain reading of the aforesaid FIR shows that there is no

allegation whatsoever against the appellants that they are part of

any conspiracy or acted in connivance with Nusarat Jahan for

purchase of land which was duly recorded in her ownership at the

time of registration of sale deed in their favour. It is the admitted

case of the complainant that Gulam Mohamad died about seven

years before the registration of FIR. Mutation of inheritance was

entered in the revenue records immediately after his death. This

must be in the knowledge of other legal heirs of late Gulam

Mohamad. Despite their knowledge of the fact that Nusarat Jahan

had remarried, they did not take any steps to get the mutation

changed in case she was not entitled to inherit any property. At the

time of hearing, nothing was pointed out to show that on the date of

Page 5 of 6 Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023

registration of sale deed, property in question which was purchased

by the Appellants was not recorded in the name of Nusarat Jahan. It

is also an admitted fact on record that more than a year prior to the

registration of FIR, the complainant had already filed a civil suit

challenging the sale deed. The aforesaid fact was concealed in the

complaint made to the police.

8. In the aforesaid factual matrix, and on plain reading of the

FIR, in our opinion no case is made out against the Appellants.

9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order

dated 11.4.2019 passed by the High Court is set aside. Case Crime

No. 341 of 2018 dated 28.06.2018 registered under Sections 420,

467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code registered against the

Appellants and all subsequent proceedings thereto qua the

Appellants only are quashed.

_____________, J.

(Abhay S. Oka)

____________, J.

(Rajesh Bindal) New Delhi May 09, 2023.

// NR, PM //

Page 6 of 6