Charanjit Singh (Since Deceased) Through His Lr v. Surinder Kaur Sanga and Others

CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[1]o INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoAT CHANDIGARH oooooooooo ooo o ooo CRM-M-34410-2022 Reservedoono10.03.2025 Dateoofodecision:o02.04.2025 CharanjitoSingho(sinceodeceased)othroughohisoLRoParminderoKauro ...Petitioner Versus SurinderoKauroSangaoandoothers ooooooo...Respondents CORAM:o HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoKARAMJIToSINGH Arguedoby: Mr.oSarjuoPuri,oAdvocateoforotheopetitioner.o Mr.oJasjeetoSinghoDhaliwal,oAAG,oPunjab.o Mr.oP.S.oAhluwalia,oAdvocate fororespondentsoNo.1otoo3,o6otoo8,o 11oando13o(vendors). **** KARAMJIToSINGH,oJ.o

¶1TheoinstantopetitionounderoSectiono482oCr.P.C.oisofiledoby complainant/petitioneroCharanjitoSinghothroughohisoLRoParminderoKaur seekingoquashingoofoorderodatedo13.07.2016oAnnexureoP-1opassedobyothe CourtoofoJudicialoMagistrateoIstoClass,oSBSoNagaroinoCriminalocomplaint No.28/2015oRBT/CRM-3776-2013otitledoasoCharanjitoSinghoVs.oGulshan Raioandoothers,otootheoextent,otheoprotestopetitionofiledobyocomplainant CharanjitoSinghowasodismissedoquaorespondentsoNo.1otoo13ohereinoandoorder datedo14.01.2022oAnnexureoP-2opassedobyotheoCourtoofoAdditionaloSessions Judge,oSBSoNagarovideowhichotheorevisionopetitionofiledobyotheopetitioner againstotheosaidoorderodatedo13.07.2016o(AnnexureoP-1),ohasobeenodismissed. CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[2]o

¶2TheobriefofactsoofotheocaseoareothatocomplainantoCharanjitoSingh wasosonoofoMeharoSinghoandoheowasopermanentoresidentoofoUnitedoKingdom. Complainantoreportedotootheopoliceothatopropertyoinoquestionosituatedoon railwayoroadoBangaowasoownedobyohisofatheroMeharoSinghowhoopurchased theosameoinoaoCourtoauction.oTheosaidopropertyoconsistedoofotwooportions. Theoeasternoportionocomprisedoofotwoorooms,obathroomoandoaokitchen,owhich wasotakenoonorentobyoaccusedoHarbansoLalofromoMeharoSinghoino1972-1973. Theowesternoportionocomprisedoofothreeoshopsoabuttingotheorailwayoroad, whichowereorentedooutotoothreeodifferentotenantsobutotwooofotheoshopsowere lateroonovacated.oMeharoSinghoexecutedoWillowithoregardotoohisoentireoestate includingotheoaforesaidopropertyoinofavouroofohisosonoCharanjitoSingh.oOn demiseoofoMeharoSingh,otheoproperty oin oquestion owasosucceeded oby complainantoCharanjitoSingh.oTakingobenefitoofotheoabsenceoofocomplainant Charanjit oSingh,oaccused oGulshan oRai,oRakesh oRai oand oHarbans oLal illegallyooccupiedoaforesaidotwoovacantoshops,owhileotheothirdoshopoisostilloin possessionoofoaotenantounderotheocomplainant.oAfterotakingoillegalopossession ofotheoaforesaidotwooshops,oGulshanoRai,oRakeshoRaioandoHarbansoLal startedoclaimingothatotheyohaveopurchasedotheosaidotwooshopsothrough registeredosaleodeeds.oTheocomplainantoallegedothatotheoconcernedofourosale deedsoEx.CW-5/95,oEx.CW-5/97,oEx.CW-5/99oandoEx.C-5/100oareoforged andofabricatedodocuments.oTheoallegedovendorsoofotheosaidosaleodeedsoi.e. respondentsoNo.1otoo3oandorespondentsoNo.6otoo8,owereohavingonooright,otitle orointerestoinotheopropertyoinoquestion.oTheoallegedosaleodeedsowereoinofavour ofo Gulshan oRai oand o Rakesh o Rai osons oofoHarbans o Lal.oTheorevenue authoritiesowronglyosanctionedomutationoNo.16427oinofavouroofoGulshanoRai CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[3]o andoRakeshoRaioonotheobasisoofoaforesaidoallegedosaleotransactions.oHowever, subsequently,otheosaidomutationowasocancelledobyoAssistantoCollectoroIst Grade,oNawashahar.oTheoaforesaidovendeesoalsoogaveofalseoaffidavitoto MunicipaloCommitteeoBanga,owithoregardotootheiroownership.oOnotheobasis ofotheosaidocomplaint,opoliceoregisteredoFIRoNo.125odatedo29.04.2004ounder Sectionso420oando120-BoIPCoinoPoliceoStationoBangaoagainstoallotheoaccused includingotheovendors,ovendeesoandotheoattestingowitnessesoofotheoafore-statedoregisteredosaleodeeds.oTheomatterowasoinvestigatedobyotheopoliceoand the o accused o persons o joined o the o investigation. o On o completion o of investigation,opoliceopresentedocancellationoreportodatedo18.01.2006obefore theoCourtoconcerned.oHowever,otheosameowasorejectedowithodirectionotoothe policeotoofurtheroinvestigateotheomatter.oEvenoafterofurtheroinvestigation, policeopresentedoanotherocancellationoreportodatedo19.11.2006obutotheosame wasoalsoorejectedowithodirectionotoofurtheroinvestigateointootheomatter. Thereafter, o third o cancellation o report o was o submitted o by o the o police o on

21.02.2009oandotheosameowasoacceptedobyotheoCourtoconcerned.oHowever, theoprotestopetitionofiledobyotheocomplainantowasotreatedoasoaoprivate criminalocomplaint.o

¶3In otheopreliminary oevidence,ocomplainantoexaminedoCW-1 YashpaloSinghowhooproducedosummonedorecordomaintainedobyoMunicipal CommitteeoBangaoandoheoprovedodocumentsoEx.CW-1/AotooEx.CW-1/Coand documentsoEx.CW-1/DoandoEx.CW-1/EoandocopyoofoaffidavitoEx.CW-1/F. CW-2oHarpreetoSingh,oAlhmadoofotheoCourtoofoAdditionaloSessionsoJudge, SBSoNagaroproducedotheosummonedorecordoandoprovedodocumentsoEx.CW-2/1otooEx.CW-2/6.oCW-3oKashmirioLal,oPatwarioCircleoBanga,oDistrictoSBS CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[4]o Nagaroproducedotheorecordorelatingotooconcernedojamabandisoandoheoproved jamabandisoEx.CW-3/Aoofo1982-1983oandoEx.CW-3/Boofo1987-1988.oCW-4 ASIoPremoLaloofficialoofoSSPooffice,oSBSoNagaroproducedotheosummoned recordoandoprovedodocumentsoEx.CW-4/1otooEx.CW-4/21.oCW-5oGurcharan SinghoattorneyoofocomplainantoCharanjitoSinghoreiteratedotheoaverments madeoinotheoprotestopetition.oHeoprovedopoweroofoattorneyoEx.CW-5/1.oHe alsooprovedodocumentsoEx.CW-5/2otooEx.CW-5/53.oHeoalso otendered documentsoEx.CW-5/54otooEx.CW-5/100.

¶4Onocompletionoofopreliminaryoevidence,otheoCourtoofoIllaqa Magistrateoconcernedodismissedotheoprotestopetitiono(criminalocomplaint) againstotheorespondentsohereinobutosummonedoGulshanoRai,oRakeshoRaioand HarbansoLalotoofaceotrialounderoSectionso420,o467,o468,o471oando120-BoIPC, videoorderodatedo13.07.2016oAnnexureoP-1.

¶5The o complainant o being o aggrieved o filed o criminal o revision petitionoagainstorespondentsoNo.1otoo13oherein.oHowever,otheosaidorevision petitionowasodismissedobyotheoCourtoofoAdditionaloSessionsoJudge,oSBS Nagarovideoorderodatedo14.01.2022oAnnexureoP-2.

¶6Stillobeingonotosatisfied,ocomplainant/petitionerohasofiledothe presentopetitionounderoSectiono482oCr.P.Coandohasolaidochallengeotooorders AnnexureoP-1oandoAnnexureoP-2opassedobyotheoCourtoofoIllaqaoMagistrate concernedoandotheorevisionaloCourtorespectively,otootheoextentostatedoabove.o

¶7Theocounseloappearingoonobehalfoofocomplainant/petitionerohas submittedothatotheoplainoreadingoofoprotestopetitiono(criminalocomplaint) disclosesocommissionoofooffencesopunishableounderoSectionso420,o467,o468, 471oando120-BoIPCoagainstoallotheoaccusedoincludingorespondentsoNo.1otoo13 CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[5]o (herein).oTheoallegedovendorsoi.e.orespondentsoNo.1otoo3oandorespondents No.6otoo8,o11oando13oowereonotoownersoofotheopropertyoinoquestionocomprised of o three o shops o which o were o owned o by o Mehar o Singh o father o of o the complainant.oTheoallegedovendorsowereofullyoawareoofothisofact,oyetothey transferredotheopropertyoinoquestionoinofavouroofoGulshanoRaioandoRakesh RaiosonsoofoHarbansoLalovideosaleodeedsoEx.CW-5/95,oEx.CW-5/97,oEx.CW-5/99oandoEx.CW-5/100.oInothisomanner,otheoallegedovendorsoandoattesting witnessesocommittedocheatingoandoforgeryobyocolludingowithoeachoother.oThe trialoCourtowhileopassingoorderoAnnexureoP-1orightlyosummonedovendees namely o Gulshan o Rai, o Rakesh o Rai o and o their o father o Harbans o Lal o for commissionoofooffencesopunishableounderoSectionso420,oo467,o468,o471oand 120-BoIPCobutofailedotootakeocognizanceoagainstotheoallegedovendors, attesting o witnesses o and o stamp o vendors o of o the o said o sale o transactions. RespondentsoNo.1otoo13ohereinoareoequallyoliableoalongowithoGulshanoRai andoRakeshoRaioandotheirofatheroHarbansoLaloforocommissionoofocheating andoforgery.oEvenoorderoAnnexureoP-2orenderedobyotheorevisionaloCourtois notosustainableobeingopassedoagainstolaw.o

¶8Theocounseloappearingoonobehalfoofovendorsointeroaliaosubmits thatonoooffenceoisomadeooutoagainstorespondentsoNo.1otoo3,o6otoo8,o11oando13. Itohasobeenofurtherosubmittedothatoatotheotimeoofoexecutionoofotheosaleodeed, theosaidovendorsowereorecordedoasoco-sharersoinotheopropertyoinodispute havingoKhasraoNo.1135oandotheyovalidlyosoldotheiroshareotooGulshanoRaioand RakeshoRaiosonsoofoHarbansoLalovideosaleodeedsoinoquestion.oItohasobeen furtherosubmittedothatoevenoifotheoallegationsomadeoinotheoprotestopetitionoare takenotoobeotrueoonoitsofaceovalue,othenoalsoonoooffenceoisomadeooutoagainst CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[6]o respondentsoNo.1otoo3oando6otoo8oandootherorespondents,oinotheolightoofothe lawolaidodownobyoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinoMohd.oIbrahimoandoothersoVs. StateoofoBiharoandoanothero2009o(4)oRCRo(Criminal)o369,owhereinoitowas heldoinocase,otheoaccusedohasosoldoaoplotoofolandotooanotheropersonoclaiming himselfotoobeotheoowneroofotheosame,onoooffenceoofoforgeryounderoSection 467oando471oIPCoisomadeooutoandofurtheroasotheoaccusedocheatedothe purchaseroandonototheoowner,oitoisopurchaserowhoomayolodgeoaocomplaint underoSectiono420oIPCoallegingothatoheowasocheated,oasoaccusedomadeofalse representationoofoownershipobutosuchocomplaintoisonotomaintainableoon behalfoofotheoowneroofotheopropertyoinoquestion.

¶9The o case o of o the o complainant/petitioner o is o that o earliero the propertyoinoquestionowasoownedoandopossessedobyohisofatheroMeharoSingh andoonohisodeathotheopropertyoinoquestionowasosucceededobyohim,obutowas wronglyosoldobyorespondentsoNo.1otoo3,o6otoo8oandorespondentoNo.11ovide saleodeedsoEx.CW-5/95,oEx.CW-5/97,oEx.CW-5/99oandoEx.CW-5/100,oto GulshanoRaioandoRakeshoRaiosonsoofoHarbansoLal.o

¶10Sale o deed o Ex.CW-5/95 o is o purported o to o be o executed o by respondentoNo.11oinofavouroofoGulshanoRaioandoRakeshoRaiowithoregardoto ¼oshareooutoofoKhasraoNo.1135o(0-4),oono03.09.1998oinopresenceoofoattesting witnessesonamelyorespondentoNo.4oParamjitoSinghoandorespondentoNo.12 RamoKishan.oSaleodeedoEx.CW-5/97oisopurportedotoobeoexecutedoby respondentsoNo.6oando7oinofavouroofoGulshanoRaioandoRakeshoRaiowith regardotoo1/8thoshareooutoofoKhasraono.1135o(0-4)oono08.10.1998oinopresence ofoattestingowitnessesonamelyorespondentoNo.10oNarenderoPaloSinghoandoone AmarjitoSingh.oSaleodeedoEx.CW-5/99oisopurportedotoobeoexecutedoby CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[:]o res)ondentso2o.1otoo3oinofavo#roofo1#/shanoRaioandoRa8eshoRaiotiithore ard tooIoshareoo#toofo'hasrao2o.1135o!0-4"-oono22.10.1@@4oino)resenceoof attestin otiitnessesona&e/,ores)ondento2o.4o%ara&jitoSin hoandores)ondent 2o.5o6ar/o8oSin h.oSa/eodeedoC;.CA-57100oiso)#r)ortedotoo+eoe;ec#tedo+, res)ondentso2o.:-o4oando13oinofavo#roofo1#/shanoRaioandoRa8eshoRaiotiith re ardotoo174thoshareoo#toofo'hasrao2o.1135o!0-4"-oono04.01.2000oin )resenceoofoattestin otiitnessesona&e/,ores)ondento2o.4o%ara&jitoSin hoand res)ondento2o.3o?arnandano'a#r.o

¶11<notheoinstantocase-otheoco&)/ainantoisosee8in os#&&onin oof res)ondentso2o.1otoo3-o3otoo4-o11 oando13 o!vendors"oandore&ainin res)ondentsotoofaceotria/o#nderoSectionso420-o43:-o434-o4:1oando120-=o<%C a/on otiitho1#/shanoRai-oRa8eshoRaioandotheirofathero?ar+anso$a/.

¶126heoratiooaso)ro)o#ndedo+,otheo?onG+/eoS#)re&eoCo#rtoin Mohd.oIbrahim!so"aseo(s#$ra) os9#are/,oa))/iesoinotheo)resentocase.o6he re/evanto)ara ra)hsoofotheoj#d &ento!s#)ra"oareore)rod#cedohereino+e/oti:-

¶8Let us first consider whether the complaint averments even assuming to be true make out the ingredients of the offences punishable either underosection 467oorosection 471oof Penal Code.oSection 467o(in so far as it is relevant to this case) provides that whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.oSection 471, relevant to our purpose, provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Sectiono4:0 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. The term "forgery" used in these two sections is defined in section 463 which provides "whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may beocommitted, commits forgery." Sectiono434 defining "making a false document" is extracted below : "464. Making a false document.//A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record/// First.//Who dishonestly or fraudulently /

(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;

(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[4]o

(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;

(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly./Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly.//Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. Explanation 1 / A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery. Explanation 2 / The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery. [Note: The words `digital signature' wherever it occurs were substituted by the words `electronic signature' by Amendment Act 10 of 2009]." The condition precedent for an offence under sectionso43: and 4:1 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused.

¶10An analysis of sectiono434 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories:

10.1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed.

10.2) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person.

10.3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person couldonot by reason of

(a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.

¶11In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or

(ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses.

¶12The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of `false documents'. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[@]o colluded with first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorized or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined underosection 464oof the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neitherosection 467onorosection oof the Code are attracted.471 Section 420 IPC

¶13Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by anyoother act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or

(ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).

¶14When 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. 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 orodishonest 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. As the ingredients of cheating as stated inosection 415oare not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable underosections 417,o418,o419oor 420 of the Code. A clarification

¶15When 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. CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[10]o But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. The term `fraud' is not defined in theoCode. The dictionary definition of `fraud' is "deliberate deception, treachery or cheating intended to gain advantage".oSection 17oof the Contract Act, 1872 defines `fraud' with reference to a party to a contract.oInoDr. Vimla vs. Delhi Administrationo/ AIR 1963 SC 1572, this Court explained the meaning of the expression `defraud' thus "The expression "defraud" involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non/economic or non/pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied." The above definition was in essence reiterated inoState of UP vs. Ranjit Singho/ 1999 (2) SCC 617.

¶16The Penal Code however defines `fraudulently', an adjective form of the word `fraud', inosection 25, as follows : "A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise". The term "fraudulently" is mostly used with the term "dishonestly" which is defined inosection 24oas follows : "Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing "dishonestly". To `defraud' or do something fraudulently is not by itself made an offenceounder the Penal Code, but various acts when done fraudulently (or fraudulently and dishonestly) are made offences. These include:

(i) Fraudulent removal or concealment of property (sec.206, 421, 424)

(ii) Fraudulent claim to property to prevent seizure (sec. 207).

(iii) Fraudulent suffering or obtaining a decree (sec. 208oando210)

(iv) Fraudulent possession/delivery of counterfeit coin (sec.239, 240, 242 and 243).

(v) Fraudulent alteration/diminishing weight of coin (sec. 246 to 253)

(vi) Fraudulent acts relating to stamps (sec. 261/261)

(vii) Fraudulent use of false instruments/weight/measure (sec.264 to 266)

(viii) Cheating (sec. 415 to 420)

(ix) Fraudulent prevention of debt being available to creditors (sec. 422).

(x) Fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration (sec. 423).

(xi) Forgery making or executing a false document (sec. 463 to 471 and 474)

(xii) Fraudulent cancellation/destruction of valuable security etc.(sec. 477)

(xiii) Fraudulently going through marriage ceremony (sec.496). It follows therefore that by merely alleging or showing that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offence punishable under the Code or any other law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence under the Code or other law.

¶13<notheo/i htoofotheoa+oveosett/edo)ositionoofo/ati-oitoisoo+vio#s thatodece)tionoiso9#intessenceoofotheooffenceoofocheatin o)#nisha+/eo#nder Sectiono420o<%C.oSootooho/doao)ersonotoo+eo #i/t,oofocheatin oanother CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[11]o person,ousuallyothereomustobeoanoallegationothatoaofalseorepresentationowasoa madeobyotheoaccusedotoopersonodeceivedoknowingofullyowellothatotheosaid representationoisonototrueotoohisoknowledgeoatotheotimeoofomakingoitoand therebyotheoaccusedoinducedotheopersonodeceivedotoodeliveroanyopropertyoto himoorotooanyootheropersonoandoconsequently,otheopersonodeceivedomustohave sufferedodamageooroharmoeitheroinobody,omind,oreputationoorotooanyoproperty. Admittedly,oasoperotheoallegationsomadeoinotheoprotestopetition,oitoisonotothe caseoofocomplainantothatovendorsoandootherorespondentsohereinomadeoany falseorepresentationotootheocomplainanto(owneroofotheopropertyoinoquestion), atotheotimeoofosaleoofosaidopropertyoandotheyoinducedotheocomplainantoto deliverotheosaidopropertyotoothemoorotooanyootheroperson.oSo,otheoaboveostated basicoingredientsorequiredotooconstituteoanooffenceoofocheatingounderoSection 420oIPCoareoconspicuouslyoabsentoinotheofactsoofotheocase.

¶14FromotheoperusaloofotheoimpugnedoorderoAnnexureoP-1,oitois apparentothatotheoCourtoofoIllaqaoMagistrateoconcernedowhileopassingothe saidoorderoobservedothatotheocounseloappearingoonobehalfoofotheocomplainant contendedothatoinadvertentlyoaowrongoentryowasomadeobyotheorevenue authoritiesoinojamabandioofo1987-1988oandoonoaccountoofosaidomistake,othe vendorsohereinowereoshownoasoco-sharersoinoKhasraoNo.1135othroughoShanti Devioandotakingoadvantageoofotheosaidowrongoentry,otheoallegedovendorsosold shareooutoofoKhasraoNo.1135otooGulshanoRaioandoRakeshoRaiovideoregistered saleodeedsoinoquestion.oTheosaidomistakeoifoanyowasorectifiedobyotheorevenue authoritiesoonlyowhenoitowasobroughtotootheironotice,oafterotheoexecutionoof saleodeedsoinoquestionoandoresultantly,omutationowhichowasosanctionedoin favouroofoGulshanoRaioandoRakeshoRaioonotheobasisoofosaidosaleodeedsowas CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[12]o alsoosetoaside.oUndoubtedly,otheosaidoorderowasochallengedobyoRakeshoRaioin CWP-5688-2006oandotheooperationoofotheosameohasobeenostayedoandotheowrit petition o was o admitted o vide o order o dated o 15.05.2008. o In o the o given circumstances,oasoatotheorelevantotime,orespondentsoNo.1otoo3,o6otoo8,o11oand 13ohereinowereorecordedoasoco-sharersoinoKhasraoNo.1135oandotheyosoldothe saidoshareotooGulshanoRaioandoRakeshoRaiovideoregisteredosaleodeedsoin question,onoooffenceoisomadeooutoagainstotheosaidovendorsoandoattesting witnesses.oEvenorecently,otheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoin oJitoVinayak ArolkaroVs.oStateoofoGoaoandootherso2025oINSCo31ohasoreliedouponoits earlierodecisionoin oMohd.oIbrahim'socaseo(supra) oandoquashedotheoFIR registeredoagainstotheovendoro(accusedotherein).o

¶15Further,oinotheoinstantocase,othereoareonooavermentsoinothe protestopetitionotootheoeffectothatorespondentsoNo.1otoo3,o6otoo8,o11oando13 (vendors)oexecutedotheosaleodeedsoinoquestionobyoimpersonatingothemselves asoownersoofotheopropertyoinoquestionoorofalselyoclaimingotoobeoauthorizedoby theoownerotooexecuteotheosaleodeedsoonoowner'sobehalf.oAsoperotheosettled positionoofolawoasoenumeratedoinoMohd.oIbrahim'socaseo(supra),owhenoa documentoisoexecutedobyoaopersonoclaimingoaopropertyowhichoisonotohisoown, heoisonotoclaimingothatoheoisosomeoneoelseonoroheoisoclaimingothatoheois authorized o by o someone o else. o Therefore, o execution o of o such o document (purportingotooconveyosomeopropertyoofowhichoheoisonototheoowner)oisonot executionoofoaofalseodocumentoasodefinedounderoSectiono464oIPC.

¶16Inolightoofotheoabove,otheoallegationsoinotheocomplaintoevenoif takenotoobeotrueoonoitsofaceovalue,odoonotomakeooutoanyooffenceounder Sectionso420,o467,o468,o471oando120-BoIPCoagainstotheorespondents.o CRM-M-34410-2022 oooo[13]o 1:. D#rther-o?onG+/eoS#)re&eoCo#rtoino-ailashoVermaoVs.o.#n/ab StateoCitiiloS#$$liesoCor$orationoando(nothero200*o(,)oRCRo(Criminal) 121ohasoo+servedoasofo//otis:-

¶6It may also be noticed that this Court inoRajathi v. C. Ganesanosaid that the power underoSection 482oof the Criminal Procedure Code has to be exercised sparingly and such power shall not be utilized as a substitute for second Revision. Ordinarily, when a Revision has been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to Revision before the High Court underoSection 397(1)oof the Criminal Procedure Code as it is prohibited under Section 397(3) thereof. However, the High Court can entertain a petition underoSection 482oof the Criminal Procedure Code when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the court or when mandatory provisions of law were not complied with and when the High Court feel that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional court.

¶7In State through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and Ors. , the power of the High Court under Section 482 came up for consideration and it was held as under : "Section 482oof the Criminal Procedure Code starts with the words "Nothing in this Code." Thus, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court underoSection 482oof the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised even when there is a bar under Section 397 or some other provisions of theoCriminal Procedure Code. However, as is set out in Satya Narayan Sharma's case ; this power cannot be exercised if there is a statutory bar in some other enactment. If the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character, which could be corrected in exercise of revisional powers or appellate powers the High Court must refuse to exercise its inherent powers. The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice."

¶142otiorevertin o+ac8otootheofactsoandocirc#&stancesoofothe )resentocase-othisoCo#rtoisoofotheovietiothatothereoisonooj#stificationoin e;ercisin oinherento)otiero#nderoSectiono442oCr.%.Coasotheoco&)/ainantohas fai/edotoo)ointoo#toan,o&iscarria eoofoj#stice.oCvenothereoisonothin oonothe record oto oesta+/ishothat oin otheoinstantocaseointerferenceois oa+so/#te/, necessar,oforosec#rin otheoendsoofoj#stice. 1@. Dor o the o fore oin o reasons-othe o )resent o )etition o is o here+, dis&issedo+ein odevoidoofo&erits.o

02.04.2025 (KARAMJIToSINGH Yogesh ooooooooooooooooooooooJUDGE !"#$"#%o&'#()*+,-%#(&.+#/:0 Y#&-N. !"#$"#%o%#'.%$(12#:0 Y#&-N.