B. SURESH Y ADA V versus SHARIF BEE AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
B. SURESH Y ADA V 
v. 
SHARIF A BEE AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-ss. 415 and 420-Cheating-Agreement of 
sale-Between the parties-Execution of sale-Prior to execution, 
C demolition of the construction on the property-Civil suit, for 
determining whether the construction was part of the property sold-
During pendency of the suit, criminal complaint by vendee against 
vendor alleging offence of cheating-Application for quashing the 
complaint dismissed by High Court-On appeal, held: Complaint 
D liable to be quashed-No case made out against the accused/vendor-
The stand of the complainantlvendee being inconsistent with her stand 
in the civil suit, is not reliable-Dispute being essentially of civil nature, 
has to be determined by competent civil court-Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 197 3-s. 482. 
E 
Appellant sold certain land to the respondents. Sale deed in 
respect of the same was executed by the appellant. One day prior 
to the execution of the sale deed, two rooms, allegedly, constructed 
on the said land was demolished. A suit was filed in respect of the 
dispute as to whether the property whereupon the two rooms were 
F situated was the property forming subject matter of the deed of sale. 
Respondent No. 1, in the written statement did not allege the 
demolition by the appellant. During pendency of the suit, respondent 
No.1 filed a complaint alleging commission of offence by the 
appellant u/s 420 IPC. Appellant's application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for 
G quashing the complaint was dismissed by High Court. Hence the 
present appeal 
H 
The question for consideration was whether a case of cheating 
within meaning ofs. 415 IPC had been made out. 
238 
i 
~ 
B. SURESH Y ADA V v. SHARIF ABEE 
239 
_./ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. While executing the sale deed, the appellant herein 
did not make any false or misleading representation. There had also 
not been any dishonest act of inducement on his part to do or omit 
to do anything which he could not have done or omitted to have done B 
if he were not so deceived. Admittedly, the matter is pending bdore 
t 
a competent civil court. A decision of a competent court of law is 
required to be taken in this behalf. Essentially, the dispute between 
the parties is a civil dispute. [Para 12) [242-F-G] 
2. For the purpose of establishing the offence of cheating, the c 
I 
complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or 
dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representa(ion. 
In a case of this nature, it is permissible in law to consider the stand 
taken by a party in a pending civil litigation. However, it does' not 
.mean that the liability of a person cannot be both civil and crim~nal D 
;-
at the same time. But when a stand has been taken in a complaint 
petition which is contrary to or inconsistent with the stand taken by 
't 
him in a civil suit, it assumes significance. As the deed of sale was 
~ 
executed on 30.9.2005 and the purported demolition took plac~ on 
-. 
29.9.2005, it was expected that the complainant/first respon4ent E 
would come out with her real grievance in the written statement filed 
by her in the suit. She, for reasons best known to her, did not choose 
to do so. Thus, in the facts and circumstances obtaining herein, no 
case has been made out for proceeding with the criminal case. 
[Paras 13 and 14) [242-H; 243-A-D] F 
,., 
G. Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of UP. and Ors., (2000] 2 SCC 
~ . 
636; Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd. and Anr., [2005] 10 SCC 
228 and Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi, [2003] 5 SCC 
257, relied on 
G 
Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwativ. CBI, New Delhi, (2005) 3 SCC 670 
-+ 
and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd and Ors., [2006) 6 SCC 
736, referred to 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1444 of 2007. 
H 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 6.11.2006 of the High 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 3498 of 2006. 
M.N. Rao, T. N. Rao, P. Sriniwas Reddy, Manjeet Kirpal and 
Paramjeet for the Appellant. 
Naveen R. Nath for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. An application for quashing the complaint being CC No.216 of 
2006 filed in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad_ at 
Malkagiri filed the petitioner under Secti_Q'n 482 of th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.