Patna: The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that a purchaser can obtain a valid title to a property only if the seller holds a legal title to transfer. The ruling came in a criminal case involving alleged fraudulent property transfer.
Justice Jitendra Kumar, while delivering the judgment, emphasized that a complainant’s title to land remains intact if a sale deed is executed by someone lacking ownership rights. “A purchaser can get the title conveyed only if the seller has title to the property,” the court noted.
Case Background
The case originated from a property dispute in Munger. The complainant, Pramendra Bhushan Prakash, claimed ownership of a house built on five katthas of land in Dalhatta Bazar. It was acquired through a registered sale deed dated August 22, 1957. However, on June 12, 2015, the accused, Surendra Kumar, allegedly sold one kattha of the same property. It was sold to co-accused Shashi Devi and Manoj Kumar Vishwakarma.
The new purchasers then demanded possession from the complainant. Prakash argued that since the accused had no legal ownership after 1957, the 2015 sale deed was fraudulent.
Legal Arguments and Court Findings
Surendra Kumar and others challenged the lower court’s order taking cognizance of offenses under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They argued that the matter was civil, not criminal. A separate civil suit was already pending in the Court of Sub-Judge, Munger. Thus, seeking to nullify the 2015 sale deed.
The prosecution countered that the accused knowingly sold a property they did not own, committing fraud.
The High Court analyzed the allegations under forgery (Sections 467, 468 IPC) and found no evidence of a false document. Citing Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2009), the court observed that there was no impersonation or signature forgery. Since Surendra Kumar executed the sale deed in his name, the document was genuine, though the title transfer’s validity was a civil matter.
Regarding cheating under Section 420 IPC, the court ruled that fraudulent inducement leading to loss of property was required for the charge to stand. The court referenced the Supreme Court’s recent verdict in JIT Vinayak Arolkar vs. State of Goa & Ors. (2024), which quashed an FIR in a similar property dispute.
Verdict and Conclusion
The Patna High Court held that no criminal offense was established and that the lower court’s proceedings were an abuse of process. Accordingly, the trial court’s order was set aside, and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
