Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on January 6, 2025, quashed an FIR against Maharashtra Gomantak Party leader and Goa MLA Jit Vinayak Arolkar. The FIR had accused him of cheating for allegedly selling a property without obtaining the consent of all the legal heirs of the co-owners.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the FIR, filed two years after civil suits were instituted over the same property dispute, amounted to an abuse of the legal process. The court emphasized that even if the allegations in the complaint were taken at face value, the ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code were not made out.

The case revolved around a complaint filed on October 23, 2020, by the fourth respondent, a US-based individual, through his constituted attorney. The complaint alleged that Arolkar had sold a portion of the disputed property without obtaining the consent of all legal heirs. Notably, the complainant had earlier filed 12 separate civil suits on October 16, 2018, seeking a declaration of ownership over the property, claiming it was undivided and that he had inherited a share from his father.

Arolkar had obtained anticipatory bail from a sessions court on February 10, 2021, in connection with the FIR. He subsequently approached the Bombay High Court to quash the FIR, but his plea was dismissed on March 1, 2023.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, Arolkar’s counsel argued that he was acting as the constituted attorney of Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar, the vendors under the sale deeds. The counsel also highlighted that the complainant, in his initial complaint, acknowledged the co-ownership of the vendors but filed the FIR over two years after instituting civil suits. The appellant had also issued a public notice on May 10, 2013, inviting objections concerning the property.

The bench observed that the core dispute was civil in nature, stemming from the complainant's grievance that the vendors, as co-owners, had sold the property without his consent. It noted that the purchasers under the sale deeds had not raised any objections. Referring to the precedent set in Mohd Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, the court underscored that a third party, who is not a purchaser, cannot claim to have been deceived under similar circumstances.

The court further clarified that there was no evidence to show Arolkar had purported to transfer the complainant's rights or deceived him in any way that caused damage to his body, mind, reputation, or property.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's March 1, 2023 order, quashed the FIR registered at the Pernem Police Station and subsequently transferred to the Special Investigation Team of the Economic Offences Cell, and nullified all related proceedings.

The court also clarified that its judgment did not affect the merits of the pending civil suits between the parties

Case Title: Jit Vinayak Arolkar Vs State of Goa & Ors