MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

High Court Draws Line Between Civil and Criminal Law in Land Dispute Case, Quashes Charges

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has quashed criminal proceedings related to a land dispute case, emphasizing the need to differentiate between civil and criminal issues in property disputes. The bench led by Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Rusia delivered a comprehensive judgment in the case involving allegations of forgery and cheating over a land sale in Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh.

The case, involving several parties including Dinesh Sharma, a Station House Officer, and Anurag Shukla, a business owner, revolved around a complex land transaction dispute. The court found that the allegations against Anurag Shukla, who was accused of participating in the fraudulent sale of land, were baseless as he was a bonafide purchaser of the land sold to him in 1998 by Subodh Mishra.

Justice Rusia, in his ruling, noted, “The entire cheating, at the most, is said to have been committed by Subodh Mishra and not by Anurag Shukla.” The judgment emphasized that Anurag Shukla had no knowledge of the alleged transaction between Rakesh Vyas and Subodh Mishra, making his subsequent sale of land to Seema Sharma and others legitimate. As a result, Anurag Shukla and others were discharged from all charges.

The court also quashed the proceedings against Dinesh Sharma, stating that there was no evidence of him concealing information or being in connivance with Subodh Mishra. The judgment underscored the importance of judicial scrutiny over police reports, stating, “The report submitted by the Investigating Officer is never binding on the court and the court is always competent to reject the report.”

Highlighting the civil nature of the dispute, the court referenced Supreme Court judgments, including the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & Others v/s The State of Bihar & Another, which differentiates between civil and criminal aspects in property transactions. Justice Rusia remarked, “In order to avoid payment of stamp duty as well as court fees, a trend has been developed to get an F.I.R. registered under Sections of IPC, and thereafter, to pressurize the seller either to return the amount or execute the sale deed.”

D.D.20.Nov.2023

DINESH SHARMA VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

 

Latest Legal News