Jit Vinayak Arolkar Vs. State of Goa & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024]
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India, in Jit Vinayak Arolkar vs. State of Goa & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2024], delivered its judgment on January 6, 2025, quashing a cheating case registered against Goa MLA Jit Vinayak Arolkar concerning allegations of fraudulent sale of property and land grabbing.
Facts and Background
The case arose from a complaint filed by the constituted attorney of the 4th respondent, alleging that the appellant, acting as power of attorney holder for two co-owners, sold a portion of disputed property in Dhargalim Village, Pernem, Goa, without the consent of all legal heirs of the co-owners. The 4th respondent had earlier filed twelve civil suits in 2018 claiming ownership rights over the property. The complaint accused Arolkar of deceitfully misappropriating the property and selling it to third parties.
The appellant contended that he was the duly authorized attorney of the vendors under valid sale deeds and that the transactions involved only the rights of those vendors, not the 4th respondent. He argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and did not warrant criminal prosecution.
The Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed his petition seeking quashing of the FIR, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
Whether the allegations constituted cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Appropriateness of criminal proceedings in a dispute primarily involving civil property rights.
Scope of quashing an FIR where overlapping civil claims exist.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the appellant. The Court observed:
The appellant did not execute sale deeds on behalf of the 4th respondent nor transfer their rights.
No evidence showed that the appellant deceived the 4th respondent or caused harm.
The dispute was predominantly civil, involving ownership claims, not criminal cheating.
The complaint omitted that civil suits had been pending for two years before the FIR, indicating possible misuse of criminal law.
Criminal law should not be used to settle civil disputes over property.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and proceedings against Jit Vinayak Arolkar, holding that:
Allegations did not amount to cheating or criminal misconduct.
Property disputes must be resolved through civil litigation, not criminal prosecution.
Invocation of criminal law in such cases amounts to abuse of process.
The appellant’s rights as power of attorney holder were valid and did not infringe upon others criminally.
This judgment reinforces that criminal law cannot be misused to harass parties in civil property disputes and protects legitimate exercise of power of attorney in property transactions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments