Dispute Has Civil Colour & Accused Paid Compensation To Complainant: Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case

The Apex Court was considering an appeal by special leave preferred by the appellant for assailing the order of the Orissa High Court dismissing the revision preferred by the appellant challenging the order whereby the S.D.J.M. had taken cognizance against the appellant under Sections 420, 423, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “In view of the above and prima facie being satisfied that the dispute inter se between the parties has civil colour, we are of the firm opinion that permitting the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellant, after he has paid a substantial amount by way of compensation to the respondent-complainant, would not be expedient in the interest of justice.”

AOR Nikilesh Ramachandran represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Anukul C Pradhan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant and second respondent were born to the same parents; however, the respondent/complainant was subsequently adopted by another man, who was issueless. Upon his demise, the respondent/complainant inherited all the estates left behind by him. The appellant had set up a case that the respondent-complainant gifted some of his properties to the appellant by way of a gift deed. Thereafter, the appellant sold portions of the properties gifted under various sale transactions. It was alleged that in the year 2009, the relationship between the appellant and the respondent-complainant soured as a result of which a case came to be instituted. Upon completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173(2) CrPC was filed against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 469, 471 and 201 IPC.

The S.D.J.M. took cognisance of the aforesaid offences against the appellant, and the said order was affirmed by the High Court. This became the subject matter of challenge in the appeal by special leave.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that mediation ensued and the appellant offered a sum of Rs 45 lakh, which was close to the benchmark value of the disputed landed property; however, the respondent-complainant declined the offer and instead demanded Rs 95 lakh, asserting it to be the market value of the property. The Court fixed a sum of Rs 60 lakh as a reasonable amount to be paid to the respondent-complainant for compensating him towards the land transactions made by the appellant. The appellant filed an affidavit mentioning therein that the amount of Rs 60 lakh was duly paid to the respondent-complainant by way of cheques.

The Bench also noticed that the Respondent Complainant did not dispute the fact that the amount was received by the respondent-complainant. Thus, considering that the dispute inter se between the parties has a civil colour, the Bench held that permitting the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellant, after he paid a substantial amount, would not be expedient in the interest of justice.

The Bench thus set aside the impugned orders and quashed all further proceedings against the appellant in respect of the criminal case and the lands in question. Allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “We further direct that no other proceedings, either civil or criminal, shall be instituted by the parties in relation to the disputed lands, which are the subject matter of Chargesheet No. 133 of 2011. 22.”

Cause Title: Bhagaban Gantyayat v. The State of Orissa (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 183)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Nikilesh Ramachandran, Advocates Raj Kumar Khanagwal, Shubham Seth, Lovekesh Aggarwal, Ravi Chand, Aditya Krishnan

Respondent: Senior Advocate Anukul C Pradhan, AOR Saurabh Mishra, AOR Divya Roy, Advocates Sneha Masani, Satyam Pahal

Click here to read/download Judgment