1. Registered agreement to purchase land followed by a subsequent agreement by the seller with another party — Charge framed under Section 420, IPC. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1764
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.
Rajinder Kumar – Appellant
versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1298 of 2008
Decided on 26.10.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nirmal Singh Chechi, Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Ms. Swati Jindal, Ms. Srutisma Hazarika, Advocates for Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR
For the Respondent:Mr. Alok Sangwan, AAG, Mr. Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Mr. Sunny Kadiyan, Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocates and Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
For the Appellant:Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nirmal Singh Chechi, Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Ms. Swati Jindal, Ms. Srutisma Hazarika, Advocates for Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR
For the Respondent:Mr. Alok Sangwan, AAG, Mr. Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Mr. Sunny Kadiyan, Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocates and Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Single charge under Section 420 of IPC cannot stand against appellant who is merely a purchaser of land.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420 – Cheating – Framing of charge – Single charge under Section 420 of IPC cannot stand against appellant who is merely a purchaser of land which seller is said to have sold to complainant – If charge was that in concert with first accused for any conspiracy appellant tried to deprive complainant of any value of a thing, circumstances would have been different but that is not so – Impugned order passed by High Court as well order of Magistrate framing charge under Section 420 of IPC against appellant set aside. (Paras 4, 5 and 6)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Charge under Section 420, IPC is untenable as the purchase agreement was prior to the complainant's and no conspiracy charge under Section 120B, IPC exists. (Para 3 )
3. A single charge under Section 420, IPC is unsustainable against a purchaser if there is no allegation of conspiracy with the seller to cheat. (Para 4 )
4. A purchaser cannot be charged under Section 420, IPC for a seller's subsequent transaction unless a conspiracy under Section 120B, IPC is also alleged. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order framing charge under Section 420, IPC quashed and set aside. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Whether a purchaser can be charged under Section 420, IPC for a seller's subsequent sale to another party?
No, a single charge under Section 420, IPC cannot stand against a purchaser of land which the seller is said to have sold to another, unless there is a charge of conspiracy under Section 120B, IPC to deprive the other party of value. (Para 4 )
ORDER
The appellant is an accused who entered into an agreement to purchase certain piece of land admeasuring total 45 Kanals 10 Marlas, under an agreement of sale dated 04.07.1997 duly executed by first accused Bijender. It is a registered agreement of sale. Apparently, thereafter, the accused Bijender entered into another agreement of sale in respect of the same land with the complainant viz., J.P. Adhana on 20.02.1998. Thereafter, the accused Bijender completed the transaction and executed the sale-deed in favour of the appellant on 30.11.1998.
2. The complainant lodged an FIR against the appellant and the first accused Bijender under sections 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the (IPC’). After usual investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The learned Magistrate framed the charge for an offence punishable under section 420 of the IPC only against the appellant.
3. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that ex facie the charge framed against the appellant under section 420 of the IPC is not tenable because the appellant’s agreement to purchase the aforesaid land is prior to the complainant’s agreement and it is, in fact, the complainant who may at all be answerable for a charge under section 420 since it is the first accused Bijender who has sold the land to him later. Significantly, there is no charge against the appellant under section 120B of the IPC, that is to say, for a conspiracy to cheat the complainant.
4. In these circumstances, a single charge under section 420 of the IPC cannot stand against the appellant who is merely a purchaser of land which the seller is said to have sold to the complainant. If the charge was that in concert with the first accused Bijender for any conspiracy the appellant tried to deprive the complainant of any value of a thing, the circumstances would have been different but that is not so.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to quash the order dated 10.5.2002 of the learned Magistrate framing charge under section 420 of the IPC against the appellant. We order accordingly.
6. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court as well the order dated 10.05.2002 of the learned Magistrate framing charge under section 420 of the IPC against the appellant is set aside.
Appeal allowed.
**********
