In a significant ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court quashed a cheating case against Goa MLA Jit Vinayak Arolkar, accused of land grabbing and fraudulent property transactions. The bench, led by Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, overturned a March 2023 Bombay High Court decision that had earlier dismissed Arolkar’s plea to quash the FIR lodged against him.
The FIR, filed on October 26, 2020, at Pernem Police Station and later handled by the special investigation team of the economic offences wing, accused Arolkar of selling a property in Dhargalim Village, Pernem, Goa, deceitfully. The property, known locally as “Capnivoril Guera” or “Kapni Varil Ghera,” became a point of contention after the complainant, who had filed 12 civil suits in 2018, claimed ownership and alleged that Arolkar, acting as the attorney for two of the co-owners, sold parts of the land without the consensus of all legal co-owners.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, Arolkar’s legal team argued that the transactions were legitimate, transferring only the ownership rights that the MLA was authorized to sell, and did not infringe upon the rights of other stakeholders. They contended that the case was essentially civil and did not warrant the application of criminal law.
Justice Oka, writing for the court, echoed this perspective, stating that the matter was primarily civil and the invocation of criminal charges was unjustified. “The appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated March 1, 2023, is set aside, and FIR… and proceedings based thereon are hereby quashed and set aside only as against the appellant,” the judgment read.
The court carefully noted that it was not making any judgments regarding the ongoing civil disputes over the property. However, it pointed out that the complainant had acknowledged the co-ownership issues in earlier civil litigation and found no substantial evidence to support the claim that Arolkar had engaged in deceit or caused damage to the complainant’s property or reputation.
Moreover, the bench criticized the delay in filing the criminal complaint, which came two years after the initiation of civil suits and without disclosure of the ongoing civil matters. This, according to the bench, constituted an abuse of legal process.
