Supreme Court Quashes Cheating FIR in Goa Property Dispute Case

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, quashed an FIR registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Jit Vinayak Arolkar, a businessman and Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Goa. The case involved allegations of fraudulent property sale, but the Court ruled that the dispute was civil in nature and did not constitute an offense of cheating.

Background of the Case

The dispute centered around a property known as “CAPNIVORIL GUERA,” situated in Dhargalim Village, Pernem, Goa. The complainant (respondent) claimed co-ownership of the property and alleged that Arolkar, acting as the power of attorney holder for two other co-owners, had sold portions of the property without consent.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/bail-conditions-for-foreign-nationals-supreme-courts-landmark-ruling-on-civil-authoritys-role/

Key events in the case:

• On October 16, 2018, the complainant filed multiple civil suits asserting his ownership over the property.
• Arolkar, representing his clients, contested the claim, arguing that his principals had a rightful share in the property.
• Two years later, on October 23, 2020, the complainant lodged an FIR, alleging fraudulent sale of the property.
• The FIR was registered under Section 420 IPC, accusing Arolkar of deceit and misappropriation.
• Arolkar was granted anticipatory bail on February 10, 2021.
• He later filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) to quash the FIR.
• The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Jit Vinayak Arolkar)

• The appellant argued that the complainant had already initiated civil proceedings over the property, making the criminal case an abuse of the legal process.
• He contended that the sale deeds only transferred the ownership interests of his principals and did not encroach on the complainant’s alleged rights.
• He pointed out that the complainant himself acknowledged co-ownership but waited for two years to file the criminal complaint.
• The appellant relied on past Supreme Court judgments, including R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam and Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, which held that a dispute of ownership cannot constitute an offense of cheating.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Goa & Complainant)

• The complainant argued that Arolkar had fraudulently misappropriated the property, knowing that he was not the sole owner.
• He claimed that the sale proceeds were transferred to Arolkar instead of the actual legal heirs.
• The State of Goa supported the complainant’s case, arguing that the investigation should proceed to uncover potential fraud.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Verdict

The Supreme Court carefully examined the facts and legal principles governing the case. Key observations included:

• The sale deeds in question transferred the legal interests of two individuals, whom Arolkar represented.
• The complainant’s primary grievance was that the property was co-owned and should not have been sold without consent.
• However, the Court held that this claim was a civil dispute and did not constitute criminal fraud.
• The Court cited Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, stating that a sale deed executed by a person with a claim over the property does not amount to cheating unless it is shown that the person had no right to sell it.
• The Court ruled: “It is impossible to understand how the appellant deceived the 4th respondent and how the execution of the sale deeds caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the complainant in body, mind, reputation, or property.”

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings against Arolkar.
• It emphasized that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to pressure parties in civil disputes.
• The Court clarified that it had not made any adjudication on the pending civil suits between the parties.

Conclusion

This ruling underscores the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil property disputes. The decision provides relief to individuals facing unjustified criminal charges in cases where ownership rights are contested through legitimate civil litigation.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-restores-cheque-dishonour-case-clarifies-power-of-attorney-holders-role-in-ni-act-proceedings/

Petitioner Name: Jit Vinayak Arolkar.
Respondent Name: State of Goa & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Place Of Incident: Dhargalim Village, Pernem, Goa.
Judgment Date: 06-01-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: jit-vinayak-arolkar-vs-state-of-goa-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-06-01-2025.pdf