JIT VINAYAK AROLKARversusSTATE OF GOA & ORS.

                  [2025] 1 S.C.R. 230 : 2025 INSC 31

                            Jit Vinayak Arolkar
                                     v.
                            State of Goa & Ors.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024)
                               06 January 2025
               [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed a writ
       petition filed by the appellant for quashing a First Information
       Report registered at the instance of the 4th respondent for the
       offence punishable under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.420 – On 16.10.2018, the 4th respondent
       filed twelve separate civil suits, claiming a declaration of his
       ownership in respect of the subject property – On 23.10.2020,
       the 4th respondent, through his constituted attorney, filed a
       complaint with the Police, 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 – Appellant
       sought quashing of FIR:
       Held: Appellant stated that the appellant is the constituted
       attorney of VN and SN, the vendors under the sale deeds subject
       matter of the impugned FIR – 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 13.10.2022, the 4th respondent filed a supplementary complaint
       with the police alleging that even the said VN and SN had also
       committed an offence – 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


* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                             231

                Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa & Ors.


     appellant is that what is sold is the right, title and interest of VN
     and SN – Thus, the dispute between the parties is predominantly
     a civil dispute – In the instant 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 4th 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 – 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
     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 –
     Thus, the impugned judgment is set aside – Also, the FIR and the
     proceedings based thereon are quashed and set aside only as
     against the appellant. [Paras 9, 10, 12.1, 13, 14]

                              Case Law Cited
     Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar [2009] 13 SCR 1254 : (2009) 8
     SCC 751 – relied on.
     Vijayasarathy and Anr. v. Sudha Seetharam and Anr. [2019] 2
     SCR 185 : (2019) 16 SCC 739; M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
     Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2021] 4 SCR 1044 : (2021)
     19 SCC 401; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr. [2012] 7
     SCR 988 : (2012) 9 SCC 460 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860.

                             List of Keywords
     Section 415 of IPC; Section 420 of IPC; Purchasers; Sale deeds;
     False representation; Ownership; Transfer of rights; Offence of
     cheating.
232                                                             [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                              Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 393
       of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2023 of the High court
       of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in CRLWP No. 55 of 2022

                           Appearances for Parties
       Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Ninad Laud, Abhijit Gosavi, Sunil Shetye,
       Athnain Naik, Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank,
       Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, Rajesh Gulab Inamdar,
       Siddhant Kumar Singh, Arsalan Mohd, Advs. for the Respondents.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   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 VARIL GHERA” situated
       in Dhargalim Village, Pernem, Goa, which is described in the Land
       Registration Office of Bardez under No. 63 at pages 11V of book
       overleaf of B-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
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                           233

                    Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa & Ors.


      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.

      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. Vijayasarathy and Anr. v Sudha
      Seetharam and Anr.1 He also relied upon a decision of this Court



1    [2019] 2 SCR 185 : (2019) 16 SCC 739
234                                                           [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


       in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v State of Bihar.2 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
       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.


2    [2009] 13 SCR 1254 : (2009) 8 SCC 751
3    [2021] 4 SCR 1044 : (2021) 19 SCC 401
4    [2012] 7 SCR 988 : (2012) 9 SCC 460
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                           235

                Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa & Ors.


     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 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
           express 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.
236                                                        [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


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 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 Bihar,2 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
          or 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
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        237

                Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa & Ors.


           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 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 4th respondent. He has not purported to
          transfer the rights of the 4th respondent. There is no allegation
238                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


               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
    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.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan