Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Gudru Samba Shiva Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025)
GUDRU SAMBA SHIVA RAO ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AND ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The accused No. 1-appellant Gudru Samba Shiva Rao1 has
approached this Court, through this appeal by special leave, assailing
the judgment dated 12th March, 2024, passed by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur2, whereby Misc. Criminal Case No.
10450 of 2013 preferred by the appellant under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733, seeking quashing of Criminal
Complaint Case No. 1411 of 2012, pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Lakhnadon, District Seoni, Madhya Pradesh 4,
was dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
1
Date: 2025.08.25
18:21:09 IST
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘appellant’.
2
Reason:
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court’.
3 For short, ‘CrPC’.
4 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘trial Court’.
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 1
4. Respondent No. 2-complainant5 Shiv Nandan lodged the afore-
stated complaint before the trial Court, impleading the appellant
herein and Smt. Mayabai Sen6 as accused. It was inter alia alleged in
the complaint that the complainant owned ancestral lands at Village
Hutmal, Tehsil Ghansore, District Seoni. The appellant was the
authorised representative of a real estate firm/company by the name
of B.S.N. Bala Reality Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, and accused No. 2 was the
resident of Village Barauda, Tehsil and Police Station Ghansore,
District Seoni. The complainant’s land was bearing Khasra No. 28
admeasuring 3.850 hectares, which he had inherited from his late
father Ramratan. It was stated in the complaint that no mutation or
transfer had ever been done by the complainant of the said land in
favour of anyone. However, accused No. 2, acting in collusion with
revenue officers and others, got the said land mutated and recorded in
her name, and in the name of her minor sons, namely Manohar and
Omkar7, and thereafter, acting in conspiracy with the appellant, sold
the said land to the real estate entity named above by a registered sale
deed dated 24th December, 2010. It was alleged that the sellers, i.e.,
accused No. 2 and her minor sons, represented through their
guardian, had no legal right to sell the said land, which continued to
be under the ownership and possession of the complainant. The sale
was fraudulently carried out based on false documents.
5. The complainant claims to have promptly lodged a written
application at the police station Ghansore, raising grievances in regard
to this fraudulent transaction, but no action was forthcoming. Being
compelled by the inaction, he proceeded to file the afore-stated
5 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘complainant’.
6 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘accused No. 2’.
7 Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ‘minor sons’.
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 2
complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 8 against the appellant and
Smt. Mayabai Sen.
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and proceeded
to record the statements of the complainant and the cited witnesses
under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC.
7. The trial Court proceeded to issue process against the appellant
in the said complaint vide order dated 3rd October, 2012.
8. It is relevant to note here that the complainant also filed a suit
for declaration seeking annulment of the sale deed executed in favour
of the appellant, who was representing the real estate entity. The suit
came to be decreed in favour the complainant, vide judgment dated
22nd April, 2016 and decree dated 25th April, 2016, and the sale deed
was annulled. However, the appeal against the said judgment has
been allowed vide order dated 18th November, 2021, and the
aforementioned judgment and decree have been set aside. The matter
has been remanded back to the civil court, where the same is pending
consideration.
9. The appellant approached the High Court, by filing Misc.
Criminal Case No. 10450 of 2013, for quashing the summoning order
dated 3rd October, 2012, and proceedings of the Criminal Complaint
Case No. 1411 of 2012. The High Court rejected the aforesaid
quashing petition vide order dated 12th March, 2024, which is the
subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
10. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar,
8 For short, ‘IPC’.
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 3
and have gone through the impugned order and the material placed on
record.
11. We are of the firm opinion that the prosecution of the appellant
in the present case is grossly illegal, and tantamounts to an abuse of
process of law.
12. Going by the highest allegations levelled in the complaint, it is
not in dispute that there was neither any contract, nor any monetary
transaction inter se between the appellant and the complainant. The
disputed chunk of land was sold to the appellant, representing the
real estate entity, by accused no. 2 and her minor sons. Thus, the
appellant neither offered any fraudulent inducement to the
complainant, nor did he make him part with any property or valuable
security. Hence, ex facie, the ingredients of offence punishable under
Section 420 IPC are not made out even from the highest allegations as
set out in the complaint.
13. The material on record shows that the mutation, etc. of the land
in favour of Manohar and Omkar (minor sons herein) was undertaken
in the year 2003, on the application of their father Panchamlal. At
that point of time, the appellant was nowhere in the picture. Accused
No. 2 and the minor sons, through their guardian, claimed to be the
absolute owners, and presented the complete chain of the documents
at the time of execution of the registered sale deed. The land in
question was sold to the real estate entity, represented by its
authorized person i.e., the appellant herein, by a registered sale deed.
14. There is no dispute that the registered deed of the land in
question was executed for valid consideration. There is no allegation of
undervaluation, etc. in the land deal. If at all, there was any flaw in
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 4
the title of the land, the person cheated in this case, if any, would be
the appellant, and not the complainant, because it is the appellant
who parted with consideration for buying the property.
15. In this regard, we may refer to the following observations in the
case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar9:
17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property
which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he
claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of
such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not
the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under
Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document,
there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor
Section 471 of the Code are attracted.
…
20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming
ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such
sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false
representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with
the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not but the
purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused.
21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to
deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by
any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him
any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to
consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally
induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit
if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first
appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale
deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of
executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second
accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth
accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in
regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner.
22. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in Section 415 are not
found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under
Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code.”
16. The factual matrix in Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) covers the case of
the appellant squarely. As a consequence of the above discussion, we
9 (2009) 8 SCC 751
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 5
are of the firm opinion that the prosecution of the appellant in the
impugned complaint for the offences punishable under Section 420,
467, 468 and 34 IPC, is nothing short of a gross abuse of process of
law, and hence, the same deserves to be quashed.
17. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 12 th March, 2024 passed
by the High Court and all further proceedings of the Complaint Case
No. 1411 of 2012 pending before the trial Court are quashed qua the
appellant herein. However, the same shall continue against the other
accused, if any.
18. The appeal is allowed in these terms.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
….………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 19, 2025.
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 6
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 485/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-03-2024
in MCRC No. 10450/2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Principal Seat at Jabalpur]
GUDRU SAMBA SHIVA RAO Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 301067/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 301068/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 19-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ravi Sharma, AOR
Mr. Anjani Kumar Rai, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Gaur, Adv.
Mr. Ishann Bhardwaj, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.V.M.B.N.S. Pattabhiram, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Adv.
Ms. Alpana Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (ANU BHALLA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
Crl. Appeal @ SLP(crl.) No (s). 485 of 2025 7