# Ramandeep Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 322
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 22134 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramandeep-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51211
- **Pages:** 33

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Repealing Act, 1999 -
Indian Penal Code1860-Section 420Surplus land in the revenue records-whose
possession was handed over to the Bareilly
Development Authority -allegation that
2/3rd
portion
was
illegally
sold
by
successors/ legal heirs of erstwhile tenure
holders in favor of M/s S.K. Associates -
subsequently M/s S.K. Associates sold
various to different individuals-FIR lodgedchargesheet impugned- civil dispute into
criminal offence-no forged documents--no
criminal offence is made out- after the
Repealing Act, 1999 possession of the
property in question was still with the
legal heirs of original tenure holders -their
names were mutated in the revenue
records - initially ceiling proceedings stood
abated and the applicants purchased the
property by means of sale deed in the year
2003 -prior to which names of legal heirs
of original tenure holders have already
been
recorded-no
fraud,
cheating
or
manipulation has been done by the
applicants-
revenue
records
are
not
documents of title - entire proceedings
quashe.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,737 of 110,592. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39737 for what follows._

322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statements of various witnesses made under
Section 164 CrP3C, before a Judicial
Magistrate, to the effect that the deceased
has been murdered by none other than her
husband Mukhtar. The evidence collected
by the IO by recording the statements of the
prosecution witnesses, filed along with the
charge-sheet was duly considered by the
learned CJM before taking cognizance and
therefore, the same should not have been
interfered with by the High Court in
exercise of its inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC.

29. Further, the High Court has
failed to take into consideration another
important aspect that the case at hand
relates to the grave offence of murder and
that the criminal proceedings related
thereto should not lightly be interfered
with, which is a well-settled proposition of
law."

42. From the material available on
record, I am not convinced that there would
be manifest injustice or there would be
abuse of the process of the court, if such
power is not exercised in this case.

43. So far as the question of territorial
jurisdiction is concerned, on the basis of
material available on record, I am of the
opinion that part cause of action accrued in
the territorial jurisdiction at Lucknow as the
victim and her friend had visited the house of
co-accused Amitabh Thakur in Lucknow
with regard to earlier FIR No.548 of 2019
(supra) lodged against the present applicant
and had given their live statements on
Facebook and before setting herself ablaze in
front of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, New
Delhi, the victim had stated that there was a
conspiracy between the present applicant and
co-accused
Amitabh
Thakur
and
had
expressed apprehension that witnesses were
being threatened, she was being instigated to
commit suicide and vital pieces of evidences
were being destroyed by the accused persons.

44. The other grounds taken by the
learned counsel for the applicant e.g. criminal
conspiracy, abetment of suicide, the same
shall be decided by the learned Trial Court
after evaluating the evidences, but this Court
does not find any substance to invoke extraordinary inherent jurisdiction enshrined under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

45. It is made clear that the observations
made herein-above shall not affect the trial in
any manner.

46. Accordingly, the instant application
fails and is dismissed.

47. However, learned Trial Court is
directed to conduct and conclude the trial,
expeditiously,
without
giving
any
unnecessary adjournment to any of the
parties.

48. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 322
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 22134 of 2023
With
Application U/S 482. No. 41154 of 2023 & No.
21921 of 2023

Ramandeep Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Pavan Kishore, Rahul Agarwal
12 All. Ramandeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
323
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Dharmendra Singh Chauhan

Criminal Law - Repealing Act, 1999 -
Indian Penal Code1860-Section 420Surplus land in the revenue records-whose
possession was handed over to the Bareilly
Development Authority -allegation that
2/3rd
portion
was
illegally
sold
by
successors/ legal heirs of erstwhile tenure
holders in favor of M/s S.K. Associates -
subsequently M/s S.K. Associates sold
various to different individuals-FIR lodgedchargesheet impugned- civil dispute into
criminal offence-no forged documents--no
criminal offence is made out- after the
Repealing Act, 1999 possession of the
property in question was still with the
legal heirs of original tenure holders -their
names were mutated in the revenue
records - initially ceiling proceedings stood
abated and the applicants purchased the
property by means of sale deed in the year
2003 -prior to which names of legal heirs
of original tenure holders have already
been
recorded-no
fraud,
cheating
or
manipulation has been done by the
applicants-
revenue
records
are
not
documents of title - entire proceedings
quashe.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Wajid & ors.Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.(2023) SCC Online SC 951

2. Vishal Noble Singh Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.(2024) 1 ACR 544

3. Kunti & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2023) 6
SCC 109

4. Naresh Kumar & anr. Vs St. of Karn. &
anr.(2024) INSC 196

5. Inder Mohan Goswami & anr. Vs St. of
Uttaranchal & ors.(2007) 12 SCC 1

6. Mohd. Ibrahim & ors.Vs St. of Bihar &
anr.(2009) 8 SCC 751
7. Ranbeer Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2021)
14 SCC 626

8. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal; (1992)
Supp(1) SCC 335

9. Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; (2022) SCC Online SC 1634;

10. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs NEPC India
Ltd.; (2006) 6 SCC 736

11. Prashant Bharti Vs St. of NCT of Delhi
reported in (2013) 9 SCC 293

12. Parbatbhai Ahir Vs St. of Guj. (2017) 9
SCC 641

13. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992) AIR
604

14. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Pun. (1960) AIR 862

15. Monica Kumar (Dr.) & anr. Vs St. of U.P
(2008) 8 SCC 781

16. Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs St. (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) (AIR) 2019 SC 210 / 2018 SCC
Online SC 2447

17. St. of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977)
2 SCC 699

18. Indian Oil Corporation Vs NEPC India Ltd.
& ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736

19. G. Sagar Suri Vs St. of U.P(2000) 2 SCC
636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513

20. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St.
of Maharashtra & ors.2021 SCC OnLine SC
315

21. Paramjeet Batra Vs St. of Uttarakhand &
Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 673

22. Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy & anr. Vs Sudha
Seetharam & anr.(2019) 16 SCC 739 : 2019
INSC 216

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1.
Heard
Mr.
Rahul
Agarwal,
Advocate assisted by Mr. Pavan Kishore,
Mr. Atul Khaneja, Mr. Venu Gopal,
learned counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Dharmendra
Singh
Chauhan,
learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr.
Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I
assisted by Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned
counsel for the State.

2. The applications under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Nos.22134 of 2023 and 21921 of
2023 have been filed by the applicants
seeking to quash the charge sheet dated
06.12.2022 and cognizance order dated
9.12.2022 as well as the entire proceedings
of Case No.6501 of 2022 (State vs. Satveer
Singh and others), arsing out of Case Crime
No.0949 of 2022, under Sections 447, 420,
467, 468, 469, 471, 120B IPC and Section
28(1)
of
U.P.
Urban
Planing
&
Development Act 1973, Police StationIzzat Nagar, District-Bareilly, pending
before
the
court
of
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Bareilly.

3. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No.41154 of 2023 has been filed by
the applicant seeking to quash the entire
proceedings of Crime No.949 of 2022
(State vs. Jaswar @ Jaswir and others),
under Sections 447, 420, 467, 468, 469,
471, 120B IPC and Section 28(1) of U.P.
Urban Planing & Development Act, 1973,
Police Station-Izzatnagar, District-Bareilly,
pending before the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bareilly.

4. The brief facts of the case as placed
by the counsels for the applicants are:-

(i) An FIR was lodged on
13.11.2022 by the opposite party no.2, i.e.
Junior Engineer, Bareilly Development
Authority, Bareilly against the applicants
with the allegations that Khasra No. 825,
area 0.7714 hectare, Village Biharman
Nagla, Tehsil Sadar, District Bareilly was
registered as surplus land in the revenue
records, whose possession was handed over
to the Bareilly Development Authority on
16.11.1990. 2/3rd portion of the aforesaid
Khasra No.825 was illegally sold on
20.03.2003 by successors/ legal heirs of
erstwhile tenure holders in favour of M/s
S.K. Associates for Rs. 3,80,750/- through
a registered sale deed, though the circle rate
value of the land was Rs. 25,70,000/-.
Subsequently, M/s S.K. Associates sold
various portions of Khasra No. 825 in
favour of different individuals in the year
2021-2022. The difference in value itself
indicates that the transaction was with a
view to indulge into further sale and
purchase of government land.

(ii) During the investigation,
statement of complainant-Raman Kumar
was recorded by the Investigating Officer
on 13.11.2022, statements of Dalvinder
Singh, Salim Ahmad and Julfikar Ahmad
on 14.11.2022, statement of Ram Nath
Singh-Lekhpal,
Bareilly
Development
Authority on 14.11.2022, statement of
Anurag Goyal, Accountant of Alliance
Builders
and
Contractors
Ltd.
on
19.11.2022, statement of Anil KumarTehsildar Sadar, District Bareilly on
21.11.2022 and statements of Brahma Nand
Sharma-Revenue Inspector, and Naresh
Chandra-Lekhpal, Tehsil Sadar, District
Bareilly were recorded on 21.11.2022.

(iii)
The
complainant-Junior
Engineer concerned, Raman Kumar in his
statement as recorded on 13.11.2022
reiterated the version of the FIR.

(iv) Statement of Ram Nath
Singh, Lekhpal, Bareilly Development
Authority was recorded on 14.11.2022.
Apart from reiterating the allegations in the
FIR, the Lekhpal has stated that there were
12 All. Ramandeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
325
seven
sale
deeds
beginning
from
15.03.2021 to 27.06.2022 that were entered
into by M/s S.K. Associates in respect of
Gata No. 825 for a total consideration of
Rs.3,13,66,000/-. The entire money was
being earned by illegal sale/purchase of
government land.

(v) Statement of two of the
purchasers of property, namely, Saleem
Ahmed and Zulfigar, to whom M/s S.K.
Associates had sold parcels of Gata No.
825, were also recorded on 14.11.2022.
These purchasers have also been made an
accused in the matter. The statement of
Saleem Ahmad and Zulfigar only mention
that they contacted Ramandeep to purchase
the land and had given money to him.
Ramandeep had called one Dalvinder and
asked him to give them land of M/s S.K.
Associates. They executed the sale deeds,
unaware of the history of the land.

(vi) The statement of Dalvinder,
the Power of Attorney holder of M/s S.K.
Associates, who had executed the sale
deeds
in
favour
of
the
subsequent
purchasers of land and has been made an
accused was also taken on 14.11.2022.
Dalvinder
has
stated
before
the
Investigating Officer that he had executed
the sale deed of Gata No. 825 on the
strength of Power of Attorney of M/s S.K.
Associates, but the money towards sale
consideration was taken by Ramandeep
Singh, Amandeep Singh, Harvinder Singh,
Satveer Singh, Yuvraj Singh etc. and he
was also given a share of the amount. He
took the name of several other persons and
mentioned that the company M/s Alliance
Builders and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and the
firm M/s S.K. Associates and M/s Ashish
Enterprises functioned out of the same
premises.

(vii) The statement of Anurag
Goel, Accountant of M/s S.K. Associates
was taken on 19.11.2022, wherein he has
stated that a company in the name of M/s
Alliance Builders & Contractors is 95%
partner of M/s S.K. Associates. Both M/s
Alliance Builders & Contractors and M/s
S.K. Associates shared the same office
premises and he was the Accountant for
both M/s S.K. Associates and also M/s
Alliance Builders. The first two applicants
(Ramandeep Singh and Amandeep Singh)
are Directors of M/s Alliance Builders and
the six Directors of M/s Alliance Builders
and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. were the persons
controlling M/s S.K. Associates. On the
basis
of
the
aforesaid
statement,
Ramandeep Singh and Amandeep Singh,
subsequently, were included as an accused
in
the
charge
sheet
filed
by
the
Investigating Officer.

(viii) The statement of Anil
Kumar, Tehsildar, Sadar, Bareilly was
recorded
on
21.11.2022
by
the
Investigating Officer. The Tehsildar, Sadar,
Bareilly in his statement has pointed out
that in the mutation record, at Page 969, Sl.
No.28, the competent officer had passed an
order dated 20.09.1997 directing that the
name of "the State of U.P." be entered in
the revenue record against Gata No.825
area 7714.06 square meters. The Registrar
Kanoongo had also signed on the Parvana
Amaldaramad in the mutation register on
20.09.1997, but the then Lekhpal had not
issued the necessary direction to enter the
name of "the State of U.P" in the Khatauni.
It is clear that the then Lekhpal had not
carried out the order dated 20.09.1997
passed by the competent authority and had
not entered the name of "the State of U.P."
on any copies of the Khatauni. Further, in
the Khatauni for 1405 fasli, it was recorded
that the name of the erstwhile tenure
holders be deleted and the name of "the
State of U.P." be registered on account of
the land having been declared surplus.
However, when the Khatauni for the Fasli
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
year 1406 to 1411 was being prepared, the
direction to record the name of "the State
of U.P." was interfered with and the land
was bifurcated such that four plot numbers
including Gata No. 825, area 0.5334
hectare were taken out and the name of the
erstwhile tenure holders were recorded
thereon while the name of "the State of
U.P." was recorded only on 0.239 hectare
land of Gata No. 825. This made it evident
that when the Khatauni for Fasli year 1406
- 1411 was being prepared, Gata No.
825/0.711 hectare was divided into two and
registered against Khata No. 00227 and
00370 without complying with the order
dated 20.07.1997 passed by the competent
officer as recorded in the mutation register.
This ought to have been carried out by the
then Lekhpal.

(ix) The same statement was
reiterated
by
Brahma
Nand
Shukla,
Revenue Inspector, Tehsil Sadar, District
Bareilly, and Naresh Chandra, Lekhpal
Tehsil Sadar, District Bareilly with the
further
addition
that
on
20.05.2003,
mutation order was passed in favour of M/s
S.K. Associates on the basis of Case No.
679 of 2003 instituted before the Court of
Tehsildar, Bareilly on the basis of the sale
deed dated 20.03.2003. In the proceedings
pertaining to the said case, the statement of
Lekhpal is recorded in which the then
Lekhpal had suppressed necessary facts.
Thereafter, by order dated 23.06.2008
passed under Section 34/35 (M/s S.K.
Associates Vs. Jasveer Singh), the mutation
order dated 22.05.2003 had been cancelled
and this fact is recorded in the Khatauni for
fasli year 1424 to 1429, but M/s S.K.
Associates had continued to sell the land
even thereafter. He has specifically named
the then Lekhpal Bhagat Ram, Munish
Chand, Satish Chandra Sagar, the original
tenure holders and their successors and M/s
S.K. Associates and its officers as the
persons responsible for suppressing the
relevant facts pertaining to the order dated
20.09.1997 by the competent authority.

(x) On the basis of the aforesaid
statements, charge-sheet was filed on
05.12.2022.

APPLICATION'S SUBMISSION.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits
that
the
applicants,
namely,
Ramandeep Singh, Amandeep Singh, Hani
Kumar Bhatiya, Arvinder Singh, Yuvraj
Singh and Satveer Singh are the Directors
of a reputed Company in the name and
style of Alliance Builders and Contractors
Ltd. having its registered office at Stadium
Road, Bareilly, incorporated in the year
1996 and has been registered under the
Companies Act, 1956.

6. In application U/s 482 No.-41154 of
2023, applicant-Munish Chandra Mishra
joined his duties as Lekhpal in VillageBiharman Nagla, Bareilly in January, 2000
and posted till March, 2002. The aforesaid
fact is clear from the inquiry report
submitted by the Revenue Authorities as
well as from the statements of Brahma
Nand Sharma and Naresh Chandra as
recorded by the Investigating Officer under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. The inquiry report
further mentions that Khatauni for 14061411 Fasli was prepared by one Bhagat
Ram, the then Lekhpal of the area and it
was his duty to maintain in the revenue
records about the order dated 20.07.1997 in
respect of the ceiling. It is also relevant to
point out that as the revenue records were
handed over to the applicant-Munish
Chandra Mishra at the time of his joining in
January, 2000, wherein there was no entries
in respect of ceiling, therefore, he had no
knowledge about the land in question being
declared surplus under the Ceiling Act.
12 All. Ramandeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
327

7. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the applicants-Hani Kumar
Bhatiya and Satveer Singh are named in the
FIR, whereas the applicants-Ramandeep
Singh, Amandeep Singh, Arvinder Singh,
Yuvraj Singh and Munish Chandra Mishra
are not named in the FIR. He further
submits that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in the present case due to
ulterior motive. It is further submitted that
dispute between the parties is essentially of
civil nature, therefore, converting the civil
dispute into criminal offence against the
applicants is bad in the eyes of law on the
given facts and circumstances of this case.
In support of his submission, learned
counsel for the applicants has relied upon
the judgment of Apex Court in the case of
Mohd. Wajid and others vs. State of U.P.
and others, wherein the Apex Court has
held as under:-

"30. At this stage, we would like
to observe something important. Whenever
an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure
(CrPC)
or
extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground
that
such
proceedings
are
manifestly
frivolous
or
vexatious
or
instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking
vengeance,
then
in
such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to
look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is
very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that
the
averments
made
in
the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between
the ines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC
or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but
is empowered to take into account the
overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/ registration of the case as well
as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on
hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered
over a period of time. It is in the
background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged."

8. It is evident from a reading of the
FIR and the consequent charge-sheet that
the entire set of allegations revolve around
the purchase and subsequent sale of land
allegedly vested in the State of U.P., as a
result of its having been declared surplus.

9. It may be noted that the proceedings
in respect of the land of Gata No.825 area
0.7714 hectare having been declared
surplus and the alleged possession memo
dated 16.11.1990 on the basis of which
possession of the land was alleged to have
been taken from the erstwhile tenure
328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
holders and allegedly handed over to
Bareilly
Development
Authority
(hereinafter
referred
as
"B.D.A.")
respectively was challenged before this
Court by M/s S.K. Associates by filing
Writ Petition No.19391 of 2022. This Court
entertained the said writ petition on
25.11.2022 and recorded the undertaking of
the Bareilly Development Authority that no
change in the nature of the land in question
would be made during the pendency of the
writ petition. However, eventually, the
Division Bench of this Court by its
judgment and order dated 25.01.2023 was
pleased to dismiss the writ petition on the
ground that M/s S.K. Associates being a
subsequent purchaser had no locus to file
the writ petition and that the land in
question was in physical possession of the
B.D.A.

10. The aforesaid judgment dated
25.01.2023 was challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special
Leave Petition No. 10139 of 2023. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated
12.05.2023 was pleased to issue notice on
the Special Leave Petition and further
direct that status quo on the nature and
possession over the land in dispute would
be maintained by the parties until further
orders of the Court.

11. It is evident, therefore, that civil
proceedings with respect to the vesting of
the land in the State of U.P. and the alleged
possession by memo dated 16.11.1990 in
favour of Bareilly Development Authority
is sub-judice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
would adjudicate upon the legality of the
proceedings adopted to declare the land of
Gata No.825 surplus under the U.P. Urban
Land Ceiling Act and determine as to
whether the possession of Gata No.825 was
validly handed over to the Bareilly
Development Authority on 16.11.1990 (as
claimed) or not? Dependent upon these
findings,
the
authority
of
the
successors/legal heirs of the erstwhile
tenure holders to sell their 2/3rd share in
Gata No.825 in favour of M/s S.K.
Associates would be established.

12. In case, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reverses the judgment of the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court, the substratum of
the allegations leveled in the FIR and the
consequent charge sheet would collapse; no
proceeding would survive against the
accused.

13. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that none of the offences for
which cognizance has been taken is made
out; the entire proceeding is an abuse of the
process of law. In support of his contentions,
he has relied upon the judgements of Apex
Court in the cases of Vishal Noble Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others, Kunti and
another Vs. State of U.P. and others and
Naresh Kumar and another Vs. State of
Karnataka and another, and in several
other judgments, has consistently held that
where ingredients of the offences are not
made out, criminal proceedings against an
accused should be quashed.

14. Elaborating their argument, they
submit that the allegations in the FIR and
the charge-sheet, when viewed from a
conspectus of the statements given by the
various witnesses during the course of
investigation (referred to above), would
indicate that none of the offences under
which the charge-sheet has been submitted
and taken cognizance thereof by the trial
court, are made out against the applicants.

15. Further, perusal of the chargesheet
would
indicate
that
all
the
12 All. Ramandeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
329
successors/legal heirs of the erstwhile
tenure holders, the Directors and Managers
of M/s Alliance Builders and Contractors
Pvt. Ltd. and M/s S.K. Associates, as also
the subsequent purchasers of Gata No. 825
have all been made accused in the
proceedings before the trial court, on the
broad allegation that they have entered into
transactions of sale and purchase of
government land.

16. That the then Lekhpals have been
directly implicated for not giving effect to
the order dated 20.09.1997 passed by the
competent authority to record the name of
"the State of U.P." in the revenue records
and for bifurcating the land of Gata No.825
into 2 portions in the Khatauni prepared for
the subsequent period and reflecting the
name of "the State of U.P." against one
portion and not against the other, there
being no allegation levelled against the
applicants that the applicants had in any
manner manipulated the preparation of the
Khatauni or influenced these Lekhpals.

17. It is further contended that even if
these events are accepted to be true and
correct, all this was done during 19972002,
however,
the
firm
M/s
S.K.
Associates came into picture only in the
year 2003 upon purchase of the land from
the successors/legal heirs of the erstwhile
tenure holders. The allegations regarding
suppression of facts, refusal/omission to
sign the documents and mutate the name of
"the State of U.P." in the revenue records
and bifurcate the land of Gata No. 825 into
two portions is specifically against the
Lekhpal from 1997 till 2002. The only
allegation against M/s S.K. Associates is
that it had purchased the land with circle
rate value of Rs. 25,70,000/- for Rs.
3,80,750/- and after nearly 20 years, sold
the said land by 7 different transactions for
a consideration of more than Rs.3 crores,
thus profiting massively.

18. Further, at most, the statement of
the Revenue Inspector, Tehsil Sadar,
District Bareilly and Lekhpal, Tehsil Sadar,
District Bareilly mention that despite order
dated 23.06.2008 cancelling the mutation in
favour of M/s S.K. Associates having been
passed, M/s S.K. Associates continued to
deal in the property. This statement that
can, at worst, point to some wrong doing at
the instance of M/s S.K. Associates.

19. However, the position in this
respect is totally different:-

i) Firstly, revenue record is not a
document of title. The order dated
23.06.2008 has no effect on the title of M/s
S.K. Associates over the land in question.

ii) Secondly, the order dated
23.06.2008 was the outcome of a dispute
between M/s S.K. Associates and one of the
sellers of land in favour of M/s S.K.
Associates on the allegation that the Power
of Attorney holder of one of the sellers,
Jagdish Prasad had executed the sale deed
in favour of M/s S.K. Associates despite the
Power of Attorney having been cancelled.
The actual fact is that parallel to the
proceeding
in
which
order
dated
23.06.2008 was passed, O.S. No. 2980 of
2008 had also been instituted by Jagdish
Prasad praying for cancellation of the sale
deed dated 20.03.2003 before the Civil
Court, which was subsequently dismissed.
Civil Appeal No. 155 of 2013 (Jagdish
Prasad Vs. M/s. S.K. Associates and
another)
was
preferred
before
the
Additional
District
Judge-X,
Bareilly,
during
the
pendency
of
which
a
compromise was entered into between
Jagdish Prasad and M/s S.K. Associates
and an application for withdrawal of the
330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings was filed on 18.11.2014. On
18.11.2014 itself, the application for
withdrawal was allowed and the civil
appeal was dismissed. As such, it is
submitted that the order dated 23.06.2008
was of no effect.

iii) Thirdly, the order dated
23.06.2008 was not given effect to and the
name of M/s S.K. Associates was not
deleted as the tenure holder of Gata
No.825Mi to the extent of 0.5340 hectare
(being 2/3rd of 0.774 hectares) and finds
mention in Khatauni for 1424-1429 fasli.
Though the factum of the cancellation of
the order dated 22.05.2003 by which the
name of M/s S.K. Associates was first
recorded as tenure holder is mentioned in
the Khatauni and entry to this effect is
made on 21.07.2008, but the name of M/s
S.K. Associates is not deleted.

20. Merely because the name is not
recorded as tenure holder on the Khatauni
or that the entry by which the name was
first recorded as tenure holder and
subsequently being expunged would not
mean that the title of the person claiming to
be a tenure holder is affected in any
manner. It only means that in case the
person claiming to be the tenure holder
wishes to alienate the land, the purchaser of
the property would be put to notice of some
dispute subsisting in respect of the said
property and be obliged to carryout
enhance due diligence to ascertain proper
title and/or possession of the person
claiming to be the title holder of the land.
The prospective purchaser would make
several enquiries and satisfy himself/herself
fully before proceeding to enter into the
transaction. In the present case, as the fact
demonstrate, the purchaser of the property
was satisfied that M/s S.K. Associates had
the title to the property and have purchased
different parcels of Gata No.825 at the
circle rate value of the properties. None of
them has complained or accused M/s S.K.
Associates of transferring land to which it
did not have any title.

21. He further submits that on these
allegations, none of the offences for which
the applicants have been charged are made
out.

22. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the applicants has relied
upon the following judgements of the Apex
Court:-

(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and
another vs. State of Uttaranchal and
Others,
has
elaborated
upon
the
ingredients of cheating under Section 420
IPC. Paragraphs nos. 40 to 42 of the
aforesaid judgment read as under:-

"40. Firstly, we shall deal with
the section 420 IPC. Cheating is defined in
section 415 IPC and is punishable under
section 420 IPC. Section 415 is set out
below:-

"415. Cheating. Whoever, by
deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived
to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any
property, or intentionally induces the
person so deceived to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived, and which act or
omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body,
mind, reputation or property, is said to
cheat.

Explanation.
A
dishonest
concealment of facts is a deception within
the meaning of this section."

41.
Section
415
IPC
thus
requires--
12 All. Ramandeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
331

1. deception of any person.

2. (a) fraudulently or dishonestly
inducing that person-

(i) to deliver any property to any
person; or

(ii) to consent that any person
shall retain any property; or

(b) intentionally inducing that
person to do or omit to do anything which
he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived, and which act or omission causes
or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body mind, reputation or
property.

42. On a reading of the aforesaid
section, it is manifest that in the definition
there are two separate classes of acts
which the person deceived may be induced
to do. In the first class of acts he may be
induced fraudulently or dishonestly to
deliver property to any person. The second
class of acts is the doing or omitting to do
anything which the person deceived would
not do or omit to do if he were not so
deceived. In the first class of cases, the
inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest.
In the second class of acts, the inducing
must be intentional but need not be
fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the
intention which is the gist of the offence. To
hold a person guilty of cheating it is
necessary to show that he had a fraudulent
or dishonest intention at the time of making
the promise. From his mere failure to
subsequently keep a promise, one cannot
presume that he all along had a culpable
intention to break the promise from the
beginning."

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mohd. Ibrahim and Others vs. State of
Bihar
and
Another
analyzed
and
elucidated the ingredients of Section 420
IPC. Paragraphs 18 to 21 of the judgment
in Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) are quoted herein
below:-

"18. Let 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 any other 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.

19. 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).

20. When 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 coaccused.
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. 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 or
dishonest
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."

24. In the same judgement, the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
has
further
clarified that it is only for the purchaser of
a property who has been conveyed a parcel
of land by a seller, which parcel of land did
not belong to the seller, that a complaint of
cheating can be made. Paragraph 23 of the
judgment is quoted as under:-

"When 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. But a third
party who is not the purchaser under the
deed may not be able to make such
complaint."

25. It is clear from the aforesaid that it
is only the purchasers of the property from
M/s S.K. Associates, who can complain
that they have been cheated by the
conveyance of a property in which M/s
S.K. Associates held no title. It is not open
to the State of U.P./Bareilly Development
Authority, as the alleged owner of land, to
accuse the applicants to have committed an
offence under Section 420, IPC. Far from
the purchasers of the property having made
any allegation of cheating against M/s S.K.
Associates, they have in fact been made an
accused in the case before the trial court.

26. M/s S.K. Associates, in selling
land which allegedly belonged to the State
of U.P./Bareilly Development Authority,
has
not
made
any
dishonest/false
representation to the State of U.P./Bareilly
Development Authority, or induced it to act
in any manner to its prejudice. M/s S.K.
Associates has not caused the State of
U.P./Bareilly Development Authority to
deliver any property (money) or otherwise
caused any prejudice. The State of
U.P./Bareilly Development Authority not
being a purchaser of property under the sale
deeds executed by M/s S.K. Associates, no
complaint of cheating can be made at their
instance, as held in paragraph 23 of Mohd.
Ibrahim (supra).

27. Moreover, as laid down in Inder
Mohan Goswami (supra), to constitute the
offence of cheating, the intention to deceive
should remain present from the very
beginning of the transaction. In the present
case, M/s S.K. Associates purchased the
property in the year 2003, and sold it in
12 All. Ramandeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
333
2021/2022, after nearly 18 years. When it
purchased the property, the name of the
successors/legal heirs of the erstwhile
tenure holders was duly recorded in the
revenue records; M/s S.K. Associates had
no reason to suspect that it was purchasing
land in which its vendors did not have title.
It was after M/s S.K. Associates had
entered into the sale transaction in
2021/2022 that for the first time, it was
accused of conveying land that belonged to
the Bareilly Development Authority.

28. Neither M/s S.K. Associates, nor
its purchasers had any reason to suspect, far
less any reason to believe, that land in
which
title
belonged
to
Bareilly
Development Authority was being sold.
The statements given by the persons who
have purchased property from M/s S.K.
Associates do not make any allegation
against M/s S.K. Associates. As a matter of
fact, any prudent purchaser of property
would carry out proper due diligence
before parting with huge sums of hardearned money towards purchasing a parcel
of land, which is probably once in a
lifetime transaction. As such, the very basic
ingredient of an offence under Section 420
IPC, namely the intent to deceive from the
very beginning, is absent in the present fact
situation.

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Inder Mohan Goswami (supra), has
elaborated upon the ingredients of forgery
under Section 467 IPC. Paragraphs 43 and
44 of the judgment read as under:-

"43. We shall now deal with the
ingredients of section 467 IPC. Section 467
IPC reads as under:-

"467.
Forgery
of
valuable
security, will etc. Whoever forges a
document which purports to be a valuable
security or a will, or an authority to adopt
a son, or which purports to give authority
to any person to make or transfer any
valuable security, or to receive the
principal, interest or dividends thereon, or
to receive or deliver any money, moveable
property, or valuable security, or any
document purporting to be an acquittance
or receipt acknowledging the payment of
money, or an acquittance or receipt for the
delivery of any moveable property or
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."

44. The following ingredients are
essential for commission of the offence
under section 467 IPC:

1. the document in question so
forged;

2. the accused who forged it.

3. the document is one of the
kinds enumerated in the aforementioned
section.

The basic ingredients of offence
under Section 467 are altogether missing
even in the allegations of the FIR against
the appellants. Therefore, by no stretch of
the imagination, the appellants can be
legally prosecuted for an offence under
Section 467 IPC."

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
recent judgment in Ranbeer Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others has followed the
principle laid down in Mohd. Ibrahim
(supra) and further elaborated upon forgery
in paragraph no.24 of the judgment, which
reads as under:-

"24.