RAMESH DUTI & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 1163 · Decided: 21-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 10 S.C.R. 1163 
RAMESH DUTI & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1284 of 2009) 
JULY 21, 2009 
(5.8. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - FIR lodged 
under ss.4201465146714681471 and 1208 /PC - Quashing of 
A 
B 
_, A/legation against appellants was that suit land, though in 
C 
possession of appellants, vested in government and 
appellants by transferring the suit land cheated government 
- Petition uls.482 - High Court dismissed the petition -
Correctness of - Held: Not correct - Entry in revenue record 
of rights is merely an evidence of possession - Such an entry o 
would not create title and absence thereof would not 
extinguish the same - Unless there exists a statutory interdict, · 
a person in possession may transfer his right, title and interest 
in favour of a third party - In the facts and circumstances of 
the case, only because appellants transferred a portion of the E 
land without having complete ownership over it by itself would 
not satisfy the ingredients of ss.467, 468 and 469 /PC - Some 
of the parameters laid down in *Bhajan Lal were satisfied -
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420-465146714681471 and 1208. 
Appellants were members of managing committee of F 
a school. They filed a suit in 1990 praying for a decree 
for possession of the suit land in respect of which a 
decree acknowledging a transfer in their favour was 
passed. The suit was decreed. An order of mutation was 
thereafter passed in their favour which however was G 
subsequently cancelled. Appellants sold a part of land. 
The third respondent raised a question with regard to the 
purported illegal transfer by appellants before the District 
Grievance Committee. An FIR was lodged stating that on 
1163 
H 
1164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A cancellation of mutation in favour of appellants, the 
ownership vested in the Central Government and the 
appellants by selling the land cheated the government. 
The appellants filed petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for 
quashing the FIR which was dismissed. Hence the 
8 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Indisputably, the appellants, as members of 
the society, were running a school on the plot in 
C question. They obtained a decree in their favour. The 
decree was not only passed against the State but also 
against the Collector and one Kahla Singh who claimed 
his right, title and interest in or over the said property. The 
respondents filed a counter affidavit wherein it was 
D stated that the title in respect of the lands in question was 
with the Central Government. [Para 14] [1172-A-C] 
2. Title in or over an immoveable property has many 
facets. Possession is one of them. Unless there exists a 
statutory interdict, a person in possession may transfer 
E his right, title and interest in favour of a third party. [Para 
15] [1172-D] 
F 
Vinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra (2009) 
2 sec 532, relied on. 
3. It is not correct in contending that only because 
the order of mutation made in favour of the appellants 
was cancelled, the same would lead to conclusion that 
they had no title over the property. It is now a well settled 
G principle of law that entry in a Revenue Record of rights 
merely is an evidence of possession. Such an entry does 
not create title; absence thereof does not extinguish the 
same. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the 
appellants committed acts of criminal misconduct while 
H 
.I 
RAMESH DUTI & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 1165 
ORS. 
trying to obtain orders of mutation but it is another thing A 
to say that only because they filed such an application, 
the same by itself would tantamount to commission of a 
criminal offence. In the facts and circumstances of this 
case, only because appellants transferred a portion of the 
property without having complete ownership over them 
B 
by itself would not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 467, 
468 and 469. (Paras 16 and 17] [1172-E-H; 1173-A) 
Faqruddin (Dead) through LRs. v, Tajuddin (Dead) 
through LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 12; Devendra & Ors. v. State of C 
U.P. & Anr 2007 (9) SCC 613, relied on. 
4. The provisions of Section 41 to 44 of the Indian 
Evidence Act do not suggest that the decision of the Civil 
Court would be binding on the Criminal Courts. The 
institution of a criminal case must be held to be an act of D 
ma/a fide on the part of the respondents in the backdrop 
of events which stand admitted. This case, therefore, 

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