Bombay High Court: In a criminal application challenging the rejection of an application for discharge under Section 227, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), a Single Judge Bench of Sandesh D. Patil, J., held that where a registered sale deed records receipt of the entire sale consideration and transfer of title, its terms cannot be overridden by a separate unregistered agreement to which the purchasers were not parties. The Court observed that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that the material on record did not disclose the ingredients of the offence of cheating, particularly dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction. Holding that the courts below had failed to independently analyse the documents forming part of the charge-sheet while considering the discharge application, the Court quashed the orders rejecting discharge and allowed the criminal application.
Background
The dispute arose from a complaint alleging that an Isar Pavati in the nature of a memorandum of understanding was executed in respect of a survey for a total consideration of ₹2.84 crore. An amount of ₹11,00,000 was paid through cheques pursuant to this arrangement, though one cheque of ₹5,00,000 was subsequently dishonoured. Pursuant to the arrangement, part payment was allegedly made through cheques, one of which was dishonoured. Subsequently, a registered sale deed dated 7 May 2014 was executed in favour of the applicants in respect of the same property for a consideration of ₹70 lakh. The sale deed specifically recorded that the entire consideration had been received and title stood transferred in favour of the purchasers.
The complainant, however, relied upon a separate unregistered agreement executed on the very same day between himself, his brother and another accused, wherein it was allegedly agreed that the balance consideration under the earlier arrangement remained payable. Reliance was also placed upon a subsequent Paratfed (repayment) Agreement dated 9 October 2016 recording that only ₹1.17 crore out of ₹2.84 crore had been, leaving a balance of ₹1.67 crore outstanding. g. Admittedly, the applicants were not parties to either the unregistered agreement or the repayment agreement.
The applicants contended that the transaction was purely civil in nature and that once the registered sale deed had been executed and consideration acknowledged therein, no offence under Sections 420 and 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) could arise. It was further submitted that the registered document spoke for itself, the relationship between the parties was that of purchaser and vendor, title had already passed to the applicants, and a civil suit concerning the transaction was already pending.
Opposing the application, it was contended that the registered sale deed formed part of the earlier arrangement and that the applicants had acted in collusion with the other accused to deprive the complainant of the agreed consideration. It was further argued that both the trial court and the revisional court had concurrently rejected the application for discharge and, therefore, no interference was warranted.
Analysis
The Court observed that the gravamen of the allegations was that the registered sale deed dated 7 May 2014 formed part of the earlier memorandum of understanding and that the applicants, in collusion with another accused, had duped the complainant of a substantial amount. The Court noted that the gravamen of the allegations was that the registered sale deed dated 7 May 2014 formed part of the earlier memorandum of understanding, and that the applicants, in collusion with another accused, had duped the complainant of an amount of ₹1,97,00,000. However, upon perusal of the charge-sheet, the Court noted that the applicants had acquired title under a registered sale deed executed between the parties, which specifically recorded that the total consideration of ₹70 lakh had been received on the very same day. The Court observed that there existed a registered sale deed which stares in the face of the first informant, whereas the complainant sought to rely upon another unregistered agreement executed on the same day, contrary to the contents of the registered document.
The Court emphasised that the law on the subject was well-settled and relied upon S. Saktivel v. M. Venugopal Pillai, (2000) 7 SCC 104, wherein it was held that terms of a registered agreement can be altered only by another registered agreement. The Court noted that this important aspect had not been considered by either of the Courts below.
The Court further observed that there is a registered document which is in the nature of a sale deed that defines the relationship between the first informant and the present applicants as that of vendor and seller. The Court emphasised that since the payment has been made and the title has been transferred, there is no question of there being any contrary interpretation of those documents. The reliance upon the unregistered agreement dated 7 May 2014 and the Paratfed Agreement dated 9 October 2016 was without any substance, as those documents were never executed by the applicants.
The Court observed that the transaction appeared to be civil in nature and at no point of time could the first informant lay any claim upon the land in question or on the applicants on the basis of the complaint. Moreover, the Isar Pavati, the unregistered agreement, and the Paratfed Agreement were of no avail since the applicants were not parties to those documents. The prosecution under Section 420 IPC was held to be quite untenable where a registered document clearly showed that the Applicants had paid the amount and that there is a civil suit to declare that document illegal; there would be no question of attracting provisions of Section 420 IPC.
The Court reiterated that it is settled by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court where the offence under Section 420 is interpreted, and it is settled law that in order to make out an offence under Section 420, what is necessary is to show that there was cheating right from the inception. While in the present case there may be such averments against the accused, the documents on record clearly demonstrated that the applicants were not parties to the earlier memorandum of understanding, the separate agreement dated 7 May 2014 or the Paratfed Agreement dated 9 October 2016. Consequently, no offence under Section 420 IPC could be said to have been made out against them.
The Court further observed that the criminal process cannot be permitted to be misused for settling personal scores, wreaking vengeance, or converting criminal proceedings into recovery proceedings. The Court referred to G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, where it was held that the Supreme Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Significantly, the Court emphasised that while deciding an application under Section 227 CrPC, the Court should be very cautious and should not act as a mere post office of the prosecution. Every document forming part of the charge-sheet must be independently analysed. The Court observed that the courts below had failed to discharge their obligations under Section 227 CrPC by addressing only the peripheral issues without considering the material documents.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal application and quashed and set aside the order dated 1 January 2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, and the order dated 23 July 2025 passed by the Sessions Court, Solapur, rejecting the applicants’ application for discharge. The applicants were discharged from the prosecution. The Court clarified that the observations made in the order were confined only to the case of the applicants and would neither affect the trial against the remaining accused nor influence any pending civil proceedings, which were directed to be decided independently on their own merits and in accordance with law.
[Prabhakar Rajaram Kshirsagar v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 921 of 2025, decided on 24-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicants: Ritesh Thobde
For the Respondent: Avinash A. Naik, APP, Vaibhav R. Gaikwad with Samrat Hajare