Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa & Ors.

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 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.