The central legal point established in the judgment is that allegations involving the execution of a sale deed claiming ownership do not necessarily constitute the offence of cheating under section 420 IPC, and disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences, which will have to be tried as criminal offences if they also amount to civil disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C.P.Case No.104 of 2016, including the order dated 04.02.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Bokaro, whereby cognizance under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken on the complaint filed by the Opposite party no.2 and summons have been issued against the accused person including the petitioner, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Bokaro.

2. O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint, alleging therein that:

The opposite party no.2 namely Ambuj Choudhary filed a complaint before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, on 04.02.2016. The same was registered as C.P.Case No.104 of 2016. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as an accused no.5 in the said complaint case. The allegation in short, is that the accused nos.1 to 3 by misrepresenting themselves as the legal heirs and representatives of the recorded tenant of the land pertaining to Plot No.460, Khata No.55, Village Rangamatiya, Thana Chandankiyari, Thana No.254, District Bokaro, measuring 29.25 acres have executed a Sale Deed dated 12.11.2015 in favour of M/s Rungta Mines Limited.

3. It has been further alleged that the accused nos.4 and 5 (petitioner herein) have also conspired and a forged genealogical table was also prepared, for the joint property of the complainant and their witnesses and over which the complainant and their witnesses are in possession.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this petitioner has signed the sale deed as representative capacity of the company namely, M/s Rungta Mines Limited. He submits that the petitioner is signatory of the company which has purchased the land in question on payment of consideration amount of Rs.30 Lakhs. He submits that the allegations are against the accused nos. 1 and 4 with regard to selling the land in question fraudulently and O.P.no.2 is the owner. He submits that inspite of payment of consideration amount possession of the land is not in favour of the petitioner and for that, against the sellers the company has also filed the case. He submits that so far this petitioner is concerned, no criminality is made out particularly section 420 IPC. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar”, (2009) 8 SCC 751, paragraph nos.16 to 21 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

“16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner’s behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.

17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no