‘Classic abuse of process’: Calcutta High Court quashes 13-year-old land fraud case against corporate director

The order added that the IO acted mechanically by ignoring that the “wrongful loss” which triggered the First Information Report (FIR) had been transformed into a “fair gain” via a registered instrument.

Case of fraud and settlement

• The case originated in 2008 when the petitioner, allegedly acting as a director of South Asia Rubber and Polymers Parks, purchased 57 decimals of land in Mouza Jala Dhulagari for a corporate project.
• The petitioner paid around Rs 6.20 lakh through banking channels to individuals posing as the absolute title-holder.
• In 2011, the status quo was disrupted when the true owner, Mansura Begum, asserted her title based on a 1982 deed.
• It was revealed that the 2008 transactions were the result of impersonation and forgery by the sellers.
• Upon discovering the fraud, the petitioner opted for restitution rather than litigation.
• On August 11, 2011, he executed a second registered deed, paying Mansura Begum an additional Rs 22.61 lakh, nearly four times the original price, to secure the title.
• Despite the complainant filing an affidavit to withdraw the case following this “amicable settlement”, the investigating agency submitted a chargesheet in 2012, arguing that the alleged offences were non-compoundable.

Petitioner’s case

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Pratim Priya Dasgupta argued that the petitioner characterised the continued prosecution as “manifestly oppressive.”
• He argued that the petitioner is not a perpetrator of fraud, but a bona fide purchaser for value who fell victim to a sophisticated impersonation scam.
• He stated that the initial payment via an account payee cheque in 2008 is the antithesis of “dishonest intention.”
• Furthermore, he submitted that the subsequent voluntary payment of a significantly higher sum in 2011 to the true owner serves as a conclusive rebuttal of any fraudulent intent.

‘Quintessential ingredient of cheating’

• The quintessential ingredient of “cheating” is a dishonest intention existing at the inception of the transaction.
• The petitioner argues that his conduct—paying twice for the same land—negates such intent.
• A person intending to “grab” land would not leave a transparent banking trail.
• As highlighted by the petitioner, the re-purchase on August 11, 2011, for a sum of Rs 22.61 lakh unequivocally demonstrates a bona fide intention.
• If the petitioner had intended to “cheat,” he would not have voluntarily enriched the complainant by nearly four times the original price to rectify the title.
• Such subsequent conduct serves as a conclusive rebuttal of any fraudulent intent at the threshold of the transaction.

• To sustain a charge of “using a forged document as genuine,” the prosecution must establish that the accused had knowledge that the document was forged.
• The record is conspicuously silent on any material linking the petitioner to the creation of the forged deed.
• The petitioner was a bona fide purchaser for value who acted on registered documents.
• The petitioner was a victim of an impersonation scam by the co-accused.
• To try the petitioner for forgery, when he himself was financially bled by the fraud and subsequently indemnified the true owner, would be a perversion of the criminal justice system.
• This is a quintessential civil dispute dressed in criminal attire.