RAMA DEVI versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 486 · Decided: 14-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010) 11 S.C.R. 486 
RAMA DEVI 
V. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1754 of 2010) 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482- Quashing of 
complaint - A/legation of cheating - Complaint alleging that 
C huge area of land was sold by the brother of vendor to different 
persons and accused having knowledge of previous sales 
purchased the land and in order to cheat the complainant sold 
the land to him - Magistrate took cognizance of offence -
Petition for quashing of complaint and proceedings, 
D dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: The materials 
on record showed that a link was not established between the 
vendor and the accused and in fact the accused herself felt 
cheated in the hands of the vendor - Complaint and the 
consequential proceedings quashed - Penal Code, 1860 -
E 
SS. 406, 420 465, 468, 120-8. 
A complaint was filed by respondent no.2 against the 
appellant under Sections 406, 420 465, 468, 120-B, IPC. 
The allegation in the complaint was that a huge area of 
land was sold by 'S' to different persons at different points 
F of time by different sale deeds. 'P', the brother of 'S' sold 
a portion of the land to the appellant and the appellant 
purchased the land inspite of having knowledge that 
those lands had already been sold to others and, in order 
to cheat the complainant, she executed the sale deed in 
G his favour .. 
' 
The magistrate took cognizance of the offences. The 
appellant filed petition for quashing the proceedings 
before the High Court, which was dismissed. The instant 
H 
486 
RAMA DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
487 
appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: No link had at all been established between 
the sale deeds executed by 'S' in respect of mutated 
property and the appellant which could have given rise 
B 
to suspicion, if any, of a conspiracy between herself and 
her vendor and his brother 'S', with the intention of 
cheating respondent no.2. If respondent no.2 was 
prejudiced by the fact that the appellant had executed a 
sale deed in his favour in respect of a plot of land which 
C 
had already been the subject matter of a previous transfer, 
he could at best question such transfer and claim 
damages in respect thereof from the vendor of the 
appellant by way of appropriate damages, but an action 
in the criminal court would not lie in the absence of any 
D 
intention to cheat and/or defraud respondent no.2. If at 
all respondent no.2 had any grievance in respect of the 
sale deed which was executed in his favour by the 
appellant, it could be against 'P' and not the appellant. 
The veracity of the appellant's story that she was cheated 
by her vendor 'P', may be gauged from the fact that after 
having purchased the suit property from 'P' by a duly 
registered deed of sale, she applied to the concerned 
authority for mutation in her name and the property 
continued to be mutated in her name till such time as she 
transferred the same to respondent no.2. There was no 
reason for the appellant to have obtained the sale deed 
E 
F 
in her name from 'P' with the intention of cheating 
respondent no.2. Therefore, the appellant cannot be 
made responsible for the circumstances which followed 
G 
the isale effected by the appellant in favour of respondent 
no.2 and the filing of such a criminal complaint was 
nothing more than an attempt to pressurize the appellant 
into making a settlement. The order passed by the High 
H 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A Court is set aside. Consequently, complaint and the 
proceedings initiated on the basis thereof are also 
quashed. [Paras 12, 13] [492-D-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
8 
No. 1754 of .2010. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated .20.12.2006 of the 
High Court of Patna in CRLM No. 19975/2006. 
T. Mahipal for the Petitioner. 
Gopal Singh, Chandan Kumar and Amit Pawan for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
dated 20th December, 2006, passed by the Patna High Court 
in Crl. Misc. No.19975 of 2006 dismissing the same. 
E 
3. The Respondent No.2, Birendra Kumar Sinha, filed a 
Complaint Case No.3714C of .2005 against the Appellant 
alleging that she had committed offences under Section 406, 
420, 465, 468, 120-8 of the Indian Penal

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