Gudru Samba Shiva Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 August, 2025

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Gudru Samba Shiva Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 August, 2025

3. The accused No. 1-appellant Gudru Samba Shiva Rao1 has approached this Court, through this appeal by special leave, assailing the judgment dated 12th March, 2024, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur2, whereby Misc. Criminal Case No. 10450 of 2013 preferred by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733, seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1411 of 2012, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhnadon, District Seoni, Madhya Pradesh 4, was dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora 1 Date: 2025.08.25 18:21:09 IST

Hereinafter, referred to as ‘appellant’.

Reason:

Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court’.

3 For short, ‘CrPC’.

4 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘trial Court’.

Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 1

4. Respondent No. 2-complainant5 Shiv Nandan lodged the afore- stated complaint before the trial Court, impleading the appellant herein and Smt. Mayabai Sen6 as accused. It was inter alia alleged in the complaint that the complainant owned ancestral lands at Village Hutmal, Tehsil Ghansore, District Seoni. The appellant was the authorised representative of a real estate firm/company by the name of B.S.N. Bala Reality Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, and accused No. 2 was the resident of Village Barauda, Tehsil and Police Station Ghansore, District Seoni. The complainant’s land was bearing Khasra No. 28 admeasuring 3.850 hectares, which he had inherited from his late father Ramratan. It was stated in the complaint that no mutation or transfer had ever been done by the complainant of the said land in favour of anyone. However, accused No. 2, acting in collusion with revenue officers and others, got the said land mutated and recorded in her name, and in the name of her minor sons, namely Manohar and Omkar7, and thereafter, acting in conspiracy with the appellant, sold the said land to the real estate entity named above by a registered sale deed dated 24th December, 2010. It was alleged that the sellers, i.e., accused No. 2 and her minor sons, represented through their guardian, had no legal right to sell the said land, which continued to be under the ownership and possession of the complainant. The sale was fraudulently carried out based on false documents.

5. The complainant claims to have promptly lodged a written application at the police station Ghansore, raising grievances in regard to this fraudulent transaction, but no action was forthcoming. Being compelled by the inaction, he proceeded to file the afore-stated 5 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘complainant’. 6 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘accused No. 2’. 7 Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ‘minor sons’.

Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 2

complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 8 against the appellant and Smt. Mayabai Sen.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and proceeded to record the statements of the complainant and the cited witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC.

7. The trial Court proceeded to issue process against the appellant in the said complaint vide order dated 3rd October, 2012.

8. It is relevant to note here that the complainant also filed a suit for declaration seeking annulment of the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant, who was representing the real estate entity. The suit came to be decreed in favour the complainant, vide judgment dated 22nd April, 2016 and decree dated 25th April, 2016, and the sale deed was annulled. However, the appeal against the said judgment has been allowed vide order dated 18th November, 2021, and the aforementioned judgment and decree have been set aside. The matter has been remanded back to the civil court, where the same is pending consideration.

9. The appellant approached the High Court, by filing Misc. Criminal Case No. 10450 of 2013, for quashing the summoning order dated 3rd October, 2012, and proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 1411 of 2012. The High Court rejected the aforesaid quashing petition vide order dated 12th March, 2024, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

10. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar, 8 For short, ‘IPC’.

Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 3

and have gone through the impugned order and the material placed on record.

11. We are of the firm opinion that the prosecution of the appellant in the present case is grossly illegal, and tantamounts to an abuse of process of law.

12. Going by the highest allegations levelled in the complaint, it is not in dispute that there was neither any contract, nor any monetary transaction inter se between the appellant and the complainant. The disputed chunk of land was sold to the appellant, representing the real estate entity, by accused no. 2 and her minor sons. Thus, the appellant neither offered any fraudulent inducement to the complainant, nor did he make him part with any property or valuable security. Hence, ex facie, the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC are not made out even from the highest allegations as set out in the complaint.

13. The material on record shows that the mutation, etc. of the land in favour of Manohar and Omkar (minor sons herein) was undertaken in the year 2003, on the application of their father Panchamlal. At that point of time, the appellant was nowhere in the picture. Accused No. 2 and the minor sons, through their guardian, claimed to be the absolute owners, and presented the complete chain of the documents at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. The land in question was sold to the real estate entity, represented by its authorized person i.e., the appellant herein, by a registered sale deed.

14. There is no dispute that the registered deed of the land in question was executed for valid consideration. There is no allegation of undervaluation, etc. in the land deal. If at all, there was any flaw in Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 4 the title of the land, the person cheated in this case, if any, would be the appellant, and not the complainant, because it is the appellant who parted with consideration for buying the property.

15. In this regard, we may refer to the following observations in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar9:

17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.

…

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 but the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused.

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.

22. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in Section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code."

16. The factual matrix in Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) covers the case of the appellant squarely. As a consequence of the above discussion, we 9 (2009) 8 SCC 751 Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 5 are of the firm opinion that the prosecution of the appellant in the impugned complaint for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 34 IPC, is nothing short of a gross abuse of process of law, and hence, the same deserves to be quashed.

17. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 12 th March, 2024 passed by the High Court and all further proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 1411 of 2012 pending before the trial Court are quashed qua the appellant herein. However, the same shall continue against the other accused, if any.

18. The appeal is allowed in these terms.

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

….…...…………………J. (SANJAY KAROL) …...…………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 19, 2025.

Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 6

ITEM NO.18                        COURT NO.9               SECTION II-E

                    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F        I N D I A
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)           No(s).    485/2025

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-03-2024 in MCRC No. 10450/2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur] GUDRU SAMBA SHIVA RAO Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s) IA No. 301067/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 301068/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. Date : 19-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ravi Sharma, AOR Mr. Anjani Kumar Rai, Adv.

Mr. Sarthak Gaur, Adv.

Mr. Ishann Bhardwaj, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.V.M.B.N.S. Pattabhiram, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv.

Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv.

Ms. Alpana Sharma, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                                     (ANU BHALLA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                                   COURT MASTER

                      (Signed order is placed on the file)



Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025                                   7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Supreme Court - Daily Orders