Judgment Name: Biju Molla v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 17 June 2025
Coram: Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, Calcutta High Court
Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Biju Molla under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court observed that no material or specific allegation of deception, forgery, or criminal conspiracy was made out against the petitioner, who had lawfully purchased land through a registered sale deed. It held that the criminal proceedings were manifestly an abuse of the process of law.
“There is no material to show that the present petitioner… induced the complainant to deliver any property or that the sale deed caused damage to the complainant.”
Facts
The complainant claimed to be the owner of certain land in Mouza Kankrasuti and alleged that his cousin brothers—accused nos. 1 and 2—had colluded with the petitioner and another accused to sell his property through a fraudulent registered sale deed in 2021. It was alleged that the complainant had never signed any power of attorney or sale deed, yet the property was transferred behind his back.
Based on an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a police case was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 IPC. The petitioner was accused of conspiring with others to wrongfully acquire the complainant’s land.
In response, the petitioner filed a revisional application before the High Court, seeking to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the FIR disclosed any prima facie criminal offence against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 IPC.
- Whether the transaction in question was purely civil and thus not amenable to criminal prosecution.
- Whether the petitioner’s role as a purchaser for consideration could be criminalised in absence of any evidence of mens rea or conspiracy.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that:
- He was a bona fide purchaser of the land through a registered sale deed, having paid full consideration, and there was no allegation of forgery or fraud on his part.
- The allegations, even if taken at face value, were entirely civil in nature and did not disclose any criminal intent or deceit.
- No materials existed in the case diary to implicate him, and the charges were baseless and speculative.
- The complainant’s grievance was actually against his own relatives, who executed the deed, and the petitioner was being dragged into a private land dispute.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, represented through counsel, produced the case diary but did not oppose the petitioner’s contentions. The complainant was not represented at the hearing. The prosecution left the matter to the Court’s discretion.
Analysis of the Law
Justice Mukherjee analysed the essential ingredients of the offences alleged:
- Section 420 IPC (Cheating): Requires dishonest inducement and resultant wrongful gain or loss. No such inducement or misrepresentation by the petitioner was alleged.
- Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC (Forgery and Using Forged Documents): The complaint did not attribute the creation or use of any forged documents to the petitioner.
- Section 120B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy): No evidence or material indicated any meeting of minds or prior agreement between the petitioner and the other accused.
- Section 34 IPC: No overt act in furtherance of common intention was attributed to the petitioner.
The Court held that:
“It is not stated in the FIR how and in what manner the present petitioner had executed the sale deed… nor any whisper that he impersonated the complainant or was involved in fabrication.”
Precedent Analysis
Though no specific judgments were cited, the reasoning adopted by the Court is consistent with established principles laid down in:
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – outlining the grounds for quashing FIRs under Article 226/Section 482 when the complaint fails to disclose any cognizable offence.
- G. Sagar Suri v. State of UP – reiterating that civil disputes should not be given a cloak of criminal prosecution.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Mukherjee reasoned that:
- The FIR and case diary were devoid of any evidence suggesting criminal intent or active involvement of the petitioner.
- The transaction was a registered sale deed where consideration was paid.
- No ingredient of the alleged IPC offences was satisfied.
- The prosecution appeared to be an attempt to exert pressure in a civil property dispute.
The Court warned against misuse of criminal law and held that continuation of the proceedings would be a futile exercise.
Conclusion
The Court allowed the revisional application and quashed the FIR and all criminal proceedings against the petitioner. It reaffirmed that criminal prosecution cannot be sustained in absence of prima facie evidence or specific allegations of criminal conduct.
Implications
This judgment fortifies the jurisprudence protecting bona fide purchasers in property transactions. It sets a precedent against the tendency to invoke criminal law in civil land disputes, especially where the complainant’s grievance is primarily with other parties. It also reiterates that mere inclusion in a sale deed, without active deceit or conspiracy, does not constitute a criminal offence.