S.P. GUPTA versus ASHUTOSH GUPTA

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 38 · Decided: 13-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2010] 7 S.C.R. 38 
S.P. GUPTA 
v. 
ASHUTOSH GUPTA 
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1953 of 2008) 
MAY 13, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
s.482 - Quashing of complaint - Complaint filed under 
s. 420 r. w. s. 120-B !PC - Assertions made in the complaint 
regarding misrepresentation made by petitioner as regards 
the property in dispute - Summons issued against petitioner 
- Petition for quashing the complaint - High Court dismissing 
0 
the same - Justification of - He/d.· Justified as prima facie 
case was made out in the complaint for trial of petitioner - The 
complaint gave rise to triable issues which could only be 
determined by leading evidence at the trial - Penal Code, 
1860 - ss.415, 120-B. 
A complaint was filed against the petitioner and the 
other co-accused by the father of respondent under 
Section 420 r.w. Section 1208 IPC. The trial court issued 
summons on the petitioner, and the accused no.1 and 4. 
The revisionary court refused to interfere with the order 
F 
.~oJ trial court. Petitioner moved application under Section 
482.Cr.P.C. before the High Court for quashing of the 
complaint. High Court dismissed the said application 
holding that a prima facie case was made out in the 
complaint against the petitioner for the alleged offences. 
G The High Court noted that the petitioner was integral to 
all the transactions that took place between the 
complainant and the accused No.1 as he was the 
constituted attorney of the said accused and therefore 
whether he acted with dishonest intentions or whether 
H 
38 
S.P. GUPTA v. ASHUTOSH GUPTA 
39 
he himself gave assurance as to the title of the accused 
no.1 at the time of execution of the agreement for sale 
were matters that raised triable issues and could only be 
determined by leading evidence at the trial. Aggrieved 
petitioner filed the special leave petition. 
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court 
HELD: A prima facie case was made out in the 
complaint to go to trial. There was a positive assertion in 
A 
B 
the complaint that an assurance was given by the 
petitioner to the complainant that the property in question 
C 
was free from all encumbrances and that the accused 
No.1 was the sole owner of the property. It was 
mentioned in the complaint that had such a 
representation been not made relating to the status of 
ownership of the property in question, the complainant o 
would have not entered into the transaction at all. 
Whether or not the petitioner was truly mistaken with 
regard to the information given by him is a question of 
utmost importance in answering a charge of the nature 
indicated in the complaint. Merely because the petitioner 
E 
had received part payment of th~ consideration amount 
and had made over the same fo the accused no.1 and 
merely because possession of the land was handed over 
by him to the complainant, cannot form the basis of a 
presumption that he had no knowledge that there was a 
dispute regarding the ownership of the property, as to 
whether the same belongs to a HUF or not. Illustration (g) 
of Section 415 IPC clearly indicates that if at the very 
initiation of the negotiations, it is evident that there was 
F 
no intention to cheat, the dispute would be of a civil 
G 
nature. But such a conclusion would depend on the 
evidence to be led at the time of trial. In the instant case, 
the complaint does not make out a prima facie case to 90 
to trial. The petitioner may have discharged his f1.1nctions-
as a constituted attorney for the accused No.1 by acting -
as a liaison between the accused No.1 and the father of H 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A the respondent, but that would not in itself indicate that 
he did not have any knowledge of the status of 
ownership of the land forming the subject matter of the 
transaction. Hence the order of High Court is not 
B 
c 
interfered with. [Para 13] [44-D-H; 45-A-E] 
Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. Narayan Singh (1998) 5 
sec 694, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1998) s sec 694 
referred to 
Para 8 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal) 
No. 1953 of 2008. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.02.2008 of the High 
D Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLMC No. 847 of 2005. 
Aman Lekhi, Meenakshi Lekhi, Sachin Jain, Vishal and 
Sunil Kumar Verma for the Petitioner. 
Ashok Gurnani, S.K. Chaturvedi and K.V. Mohan for the 
E Respndent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A

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