Land Ownership Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Buyers

The case of Mukeem Ahmad & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. arose from a dispute over a land sale, where the legality of the transaction was questioned due to the remarriage of the seller, Nusarat Jahan. The appellants sought relief from the Supreme Court after their petition to quash the criminal proceedings was denied by the High Court of Allahabad.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when Aash Mohamad, the complainant and son of the deceased Gulam Mohamad, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, leading to the registration of an FIR against the appellants under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The allegations stemmed from the sale of land by Nusarat Jahan, who had inherited it after the death of her husband. However, the complainant argued that her remarriage nullified her right to the property.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/judicial-review-of-magistrates-power-supreme-court-rules-on-section-1563-crpc-in-rape-case/

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners, represented by their counsel, contended that:

• They legally purchased the property from Nusarat Jahan for ₹14 lakhs, unaware of any disputes regarding her right to sell the land.
• The property was registered in her name, and they had no reason to suspect any legal defect.
• The complainant had already filed a civil suit challenging the sale deed over a year before seeking criminal proceedings.
• The FIR did not contain any allegations of direct involvement in fraud against them.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents countered by asserting that:

• The sale was void because, upon remarriage, Nusarat Jahan lost her legal right to inherit and sell the property.
• There was sufficient cause for criminal proceedings, and the matter required a full trial to ascertain facts.
• The High Court had thoroughly examined the case before dismissing the petition to quash proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Court carefully reviewed the facts and noted:

• The FIR did not contain any allegations of conspiracy or fraud against the appellants.
• The property was legally registered in the name of Nusarat Jahan at the time of the sale.
• The complainant had prior knowledge of the sale and had already pursued a civil remedy.
• The omission of this fact in the police complaint suggested an abuse of criminal law.

Key Judgment Excerpt

The Supreme Court concluded:

“A plain reading of the FIR shows that there is no allegation whatsoever against the appellants that they are part of any conspiracy or acted in connivance with Nusarat Jahan for purchase of land which was duly recorded in her ownership at the time of registration of sale deed in their favor.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-orders-premature-release-in-maternal-infanticide-case-a-landmark-judgment/

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and quashing the FIR and all related proceedings against the appellants.

Petitioner Name: Mukeem Ahmad & Anr..
Respondent Name: State of U.P. & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Abhay S. Oka.
Place Of Incident: Bagpat, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 09-05-2023.

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

Download Judgment: mukeem-ahmad-&-anr.-vs-state-of-u.p.-&-anr.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-09-05-2023.pdf