Mukeem Ahmad & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2023)
Background
The appellants had purchased agricultural land in Uttar Pradesh in 2016 from Nusarat Jahan, who held the land through inheritance-based mutation after her husband Gulam Mohamad's death. Gulam Mohamad's son from his first wife later filed a civil suit in 2017 claiming Nusarat Jahan had lost her right to inherit because she had remarried after her husband's death, and then, more than a year after filing that civil suit, got an FIR registered against the appellants (as well as Nusarat Jahan) for cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code. The appellants sought quashing of the FIR before the Allahabad High Court, which was refused, leading to this appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined the FIR itself and found no allegation whatsoever that the appellants had conspired or acted in connivance with the seller; the property was validly recorded in Nusarat Jahan's name in the government revenue records at the time of the sale, and the appellants paid full consideration (Rs. 14 lakhs) without any indication of the family dispute. The Court noted that the complainant and other legal heirs had known about the alleged remarriage for years but never got the mutation records corrected, and had also concealed from the police that a civil suit over the same property was already pending. On a plain reading of the FIR, the Court held no criminal case was made out against the purchasers, and allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR and all proceedings against the appellants.
Lesson Learnt
A criminal case cannot be used to settle what is really a civil property/inheritance dispute. If a genuine buyer purchases land relying on official revenue records showing clear title, and there is no evidence the buyer conspired in any wrongdoing, courts will quash an FIR filed against such a bona fide purchaser, especially where a parallel civil suit over the same issue was already pending but concealed from the police.