Quashing the first information report filed by a son against his father, 78, mother, 74, and sister, 52, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court observed that it was done with an intent to ‘harass them’ and put ‘pressure’ on them.
A division bench of Justices V M Deshpande and Amit Borkar observed: “… we are satisfied that the First Information Report was filed against applicant No. 1 - father, applicant No. 2 - mother and applicant No. 3 - sister to apply pressure on them and to cause harassment to them.” The court further added: “It has been settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to be used for settling, coercing or causing harassment to the accused persons.”
The judges noted that any transaction regarding alienation of an immovable property by the natural guardian of a minor is valid until it is struck down by a competent court.
The HC was hearing an FIR filed by Alok Khandelwal, seeking action against his father Vasantkumar, mother Shardadevi and sister Archana Gupta for allegedly selling part of the properties gifted to him while he was a minor.
Alok claimed that one Arvind Kumar Khandelwal had gifted him 17 acres and 28 gunthas of land in Akola when he was three years old. The gift deed was executed in Alok’s favour through his natural guardian – Vasantkumar.
He claimed that it was only in February 2020 did he learn that his father had been using the property for his personal use without obtaining permission from a competent court.
The father had established Anupam Co-operative Housing Society in May 1978, with the help of his friends, to grab the property. The property was then transferred to the society. Later in 1973, the father re-purchased a part of the property from the society in his own name.
Alok further contended that his father cheated him and committed a criminal breach of his trust. Besides, Alok alleged his father prepared false documents.
While naming his mother and sister in the FIR, Alok alleged that his father had transferred some part of the total property in their favour.
The HC clarified that the only issue they would decide was on the quashing of the FIR and it would not decide on the validity of the sale deeds entered upon by Vasantkumar, the father, while acting as Alok’s natural guardian.
The court further added that the transfer of immovable property by the natural guardian of a Hindu minor, far from being void or a nullity is, in fact, one which fully binds the other party, unless set aside by a competent court.
“The minor can always enjoy the benefit thereof and enforce the contract after ratifying or accepting the same. Such a transaction is perfectly valid until duly avoided by the minor before a competent court. It must be remembered that in the eyes of the law, the transfer is by the minor as the principal through the agency of his guardian,” added the court.
