Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Goa MLA Jit Vinayak Arolkar

The Supreme Court on Monday (January 6) quashed a cheating case against Goa MLA Jit Vinayak Arolkar concerning alleged lang grabbing and fraudulent sale of property by Arolkar

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeal filed by Arolkar against Bombay High Court's decision to dismiss a petition filed by Arolkar seeking the quashing of the cheating case.

"In this case, it is impossible to understand how the appellant deceived the 4th respondent and how the act of execution of sale deeds by the appellant caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the 4th respondent in body, mind, reputation or property. The appellant has not purported to execute the sale deeds on behalf of the 4th respondent. He has not purported to transfer the rights of the 4th respondent. There is no allegation that the appellant deceived the 4th respondent to transfer or deliver the subject property. Taking the complaint as correct, the offence of cheating under Section 415 of IPC was not made out against the appellant", the Court held.

The FIR was registered at Pernem Police Station and later transferred to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Economic Offences Cell. The FIR, filed on October 26, 2020, pertains to allegations of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC.

The petitioner had served as a director of the Goa Tourism Development Corporation. He is now the MLA from Mandrem Assembly constituency after winning the seat in 2022 on the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party ticket.

The case revolved around a property known as "CAPNIVORIL GUERA," "CAPNIVORIL MOLLY," or "KAPNI VARIL GHERA," located in Dhargalim Village, Pernem, Goa. The dispute originated from a complaint by the fourth respondent, a US-based individual, who claimed co-ownership of the property and alleged fraudulent sale by Arolkar.

The complainant alleged that Arolkar, acting as the power of attorney holder for the other co-owners of the property, fraudulently sold portions of the property to third parties while concealing the complainant's ownership rights. The dispute also includes allegations of subdivision and sale of over 200 plots from the undivided property without proper conversion or authorization.

The complainant filed 12 civil suits on October 16, 2018, seeking a declaration of ownership of the property. It was claimed that the subject property was undivided, and the complainant held an inherited share. Arolkar, acting as the power of attorney holder for Vidhya and Sanjay Natekar (alleged co-owners of the property), had allegedly sold portions of the property without consent from all legal heirs of Sadashiv Sakharam Natekar, the co-owner of the property.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of Section 420 IPC and the matter was purely civil in nature. He submitted that the timing of the FIR was intended to prevent the petitioner from campaigning for his party in the Zilla Parishad elections. However, he chose not to press this argument during the proceedings. He claimed that the complaint was motivated by political rivalry and pertained to property disputes already under civil litigation since 2018.

The petitioner contested the co-ownership claims of the complainant over the concerned property in Dhargalim Village, Pernem Taluka, arguing that there was no communication or inducement by the petitioner leading to a criminal act of cheating.

The State submitted the investigation report in sealed cover and claimed that it showed sufficient material to justify the FIR. It was argued that the petitioner, as a power of attorney holder, had fraudulently subdivided and sold plots from the property without considering the rights of the complainant whose name appeared as a co-occupant in survey records.

The complainant argued that the ingredients of Section 415 IPC, which defines cheating, were fulfilled, emphasizing that the dishonest concealment of material facts amounted to deception, relying on Explanation (i) of the section. It was contended that over 200 plots were sold by the petitioner without necessary conversions, subdivisions, or development.

The High Court noted that the quashing of FIRs should be an exception and only permissible in the rarest of rare cases. Courts should refrain from interfering in ongoing investigations unless no cognizable offence is disclosed. The investigation must proceed unhindered, and the court should avoid conducting a "mini-trial" at this stage.

The court observed that prima facie material existed, including records showing the name of the complainant as a co-occupant of the disputed property. The court also noted the supplementary complaint filed in October 2022, which alleged additional fraud and conspiracy involving the petitioner and other parties.

Dismissing the petition, the court held that the case could not be brushed aside as purely civil in nature, as the allegations indicated dishonest and fraudulent intentions. It emphasized that the investigation by the SIT was at an advanced stage and needed to continue.

The court clarified that its decision would not preclude the petitioner from seeking discharge if the material found during the investigation was insufficient to frame charges. However, at this stage, it declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Thus, Arolkar moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision.

The Supreme Court noted that Arolkar acted as the constituted attorney for Vidhya and Sanjay Natekar and executed the sale deed in this capacity and the deeds acknowledged that the Natekars were co-owners of the property, and their ownership rights were transferred to purchasers.

The Court concluded that the complaint failed to establish how Arolkar deceived the complainant or caused harm as defined under Section 415 IPC. Furthe, the contention revolved around the rights of co-owners, which was predominantly a civil matter, the Court said.

"Thus, in short, the grievance of the 4th respondent is that the vendors under the sale deeds had only an undivided share in the subject property, and they could not have sold the entire subject property under the sale deeds. The contention of the appellant is that what is sold is the right, title and interest of Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar. Thus, the dispute between the parties is predominantly a civil dispute", the Court observed.

The Court further noted that the FIR was filed two years after the initiation of civil suits, and the complainant suppressed this fact while filing the criminal complaint.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 393/2024

Case Title – Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa and Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment