Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Against Councillors Accused Of Non-Disclosure Of Assets, Says Agreement To Sell Not A 'Document Of Title'

The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the FIR filed against two former Municipal Councilors who were booked for non-disclosure of assets in the affidavits filed along with nomination papers in 2016. It was alleged that they had not disclosed the ownership of a property in Mahendergarh.

The court said a perusal of agreement to sell reveals that it was an unregistered document. “It cannot be said that title in the property… was conveyed to the petitioners on the basis of agreement to sell, which is an unregistered document. So it is evident that petitioners were not owners of the aforesaid immoveable property, at the time of filing of their nomination papers and concerned affidavits,” Justice Karamjit Singh said.

The State has failed to prove that the information given by the petitioners in their affidavits was incomplete or that material information about their assets was not disclosed by the petitioners while filing their nomination papers, added the court.

These observations were made in the judgement on a plea to quash the FIR against two Municipal Councilors of Mahendergarh, who were husband and wife. An FIR under Sections 13-D and 125-A of the Representation of The People Act 1951 and Sections 199 and 420 IPC was lodged against them for filing a false affidavit in their nomination papers in 2016.

It was alleged that the petitioners concealed the fact that they also owned some property based on an agreement to sell, and it was not disclosed in their nomination papers

The Prosecution contended that document might have been executed as an agreement to sell but at the time of its execution the entire sale consideration was paid by the petitioners to the proposed vendors and as such, “it practically amounts to purchase of immovable property.”

Rejecting the argument of State counsel, the Court said, “it is evident that the said agreement is an unregistered document and the same is relating to some portion of property… Even if the entire sale consideration worth Rs.56,00,000/- (Fifty Six Lakhs) was paid by the petitioner No.1 to the proposed vendors, at the time of execution of said agreement, it cannot be termed as a sale transaction, as per the provision of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act which clearly mandates that the title in immoveable property valued at more than Rs.100/- shall be conveyed only by executing a registered sale deed.”

An agreement to sell is neither a document of title nor a deed of transfer of property by sale, said the court, adding that it does not confer any absolute title upon the proposed vendee over the property in question in view of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act.

While setting aside the FIR, the court said, “Admittedly, both the petitioners were elected as Municipal Councilors. In case the candidates who lost the election or any other interested persons were not satisfied with the result of the elections, they were having efficacious remedy to file election petition(s) to challenge the elections of both the petitioners under Section 75 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules 1978.”

Case Title: Reena Devi and Another v. State of Haryana

Appearance: T.S. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Naveen Kumar Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.

Click Here To Read/Download Order