Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  2100 of 2013

Ashfaq Ahmed Quereshi & Anr.               …Appellants  

Versus

Namrata Chopra & Ors.                           …Respondents

O R D E R    

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned  judgment  

and  order  dated  15.3.2012   passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  

Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.Cr.C. No. 8882/2011, by which the High  

Court  has quashed the criminal  proceedings  against  the respondent  

Nos. 1 and 2 in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Code of  

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’).

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

A. The  appellants  entered  into  an  agreement  for  sale  of  land  

admeasuring  1.10 acres  of  land out  of  2.20 acres  of  total  land on  

26.11.2009 which had been claimed by the said respondents 1 & 2 to

Page 2

be of their exclusive ownership and for that appellants paid a sum of  

rupees fifty lakhs to the said respondents as earnest money out of the  

consideration of Rs.1,50,93,540/-.  

B. The sale deed could not be executed as the appellants did not  

make the payment for  the reason that  the said respondents  did not  

complete the legal formalities for transferring the land.  Later on, the  

appellants came to know that the said respondent Nos.1 & 2 alongwith  

other  co-sharers  had  got  permission  dated  27.3.2006  from  the  

Municipal Corporation of Bhopal for construction of the Club House  

on the part of the said land and the subject matter of agreement to sell  

had been shown therein as open land for parking purposes.  The Club  

House has already been constructed on the land and the suit land is to  

be used only for parking purpose.  

C. After realizing that the appellants got cheated, there had been  

claims and counter claims between the parties and ultimately several  

notices were exchanged between the parties.  The appellants claimed a  

refund  of  rupees  fifty  lakhs  with  interest,  while  the  respondents  

wanted  to  forfeit  the  earnest  money  for  non-payment  of  further  

instalments as agreed by the parties. The appellants filed a complaint  

under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 26.8.2010.

2

Page 3

D. As the respondents came to know about filing of the complaint  

they sold the suit property to one Ms. Nanhi J. Walia on 23.10.2010.  

E. In  the  complaint  case,  evidence  of  the  complainant  and  his  

witnesses were recorded in November, 2010 and being satisfied, the  

learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 6.12.2010 for the  

offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.  

F. All the shares of other co-sharers of the said respondent Nos. 1  

& 2 were also sold on 23.2.2011 to Ms. Nanhi J. Walia.   

G. Aggrieved,  the respondent  Nos.  1 & 2 filed a petition under  

Section  482  Cr.P.C.  for  quashing  the  complaint  qua  them  on  the  

ground that there had been a partition between the parties (co-sharers)  

and so far as the application for seeking permission to raise the Club  

House on the suit land was concerned, it had not been signed by the  

said respondents/applicants, rather their signatures had been forged by  

the co-sharers.  

H. The  High  Court  considered  the  case  of  both  sides  and  

ultimately quashed the criminal proceedings qua the said respondent  

Nos. 1 and 2.  

Hence, this appeal

3

Page 4

3. We  have  heard  Shri  Vikas  Upadhyay,  learned  counsel  

appearing for the appellants, Shri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for  

respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and  Shri Arjun Garg, learned counsel for the  

State and have also gone through the record of the case.  

4. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the property  

belonged not only to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, but they were the  

owners alongwith respondent Nos.3 and 4.  The respondent No.3 has  

died and respondent No.4 has been deleted from the array of parties  

by  this  court  earlier.   There  is  ample  evidence  on record  that  the  

permission had been sought and obtained from Municipal Corporation  

of Bhopal for raising the construction of a Club House and the land in  

dispute had been shown as vacant land for parking. It is too late for  

the  respondent  Nos.1  & 2  to  say  that  the respondent  Nos.3  and 4  

might have forged their signatures for the reason that it is not their  

case in the counter affidavit or even before the High Court that they  

had ever raised any objection or filed any complaint before the police  

or any competent court for forging their signatures by someone else  

on the said application. More so, there are disputes regarding partition  

and demarcation of shares between the respective parties.  The sale  

deeds are also on record that their shares have been sold not only by  

4

Page 5

respondent Nos.3 & 4 but also by respondent Nos.1 & 2 subsequently  

and  there  is  no  land  available  today.   No  explanation  could  be  

furnished by Mr. Prashant Kumar appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2  

as to why this fact had not been brought to the notice of the court.   

5. As the case raises a large number of disputed questions of fact,  

we are of the considered opinion that there was no occasion for the  

High Court to allow the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash  

the criminal proceedings qua the said respondents.  

6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned judgment and  

order dated 15.3.2012 and allow the appeal. The learned trial court is  

directed to proceed against the said respondents in accordance with  

law.   

.........................………………..J.                                                 (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

                                                        .............………………………J.                    (S.A. BOBDE)

New Delhi, December 17,  2013    

5