Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manohar Pratap, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Maurya, Adv. Mr. Chandrakanta Sahoo, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Singh, AOR

This Supreme Court judgment allows the appeal filed by Rikhab Birani and Sadhna Birani against the State of Uttar Pradesh and Shilpi Gupta, quashing FIR No. 78/2023, the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and summoning order dated 17.01.2024. (!) [25][26]

Facts: The appellants entered an oral agreement in June 2020 to sell property (Roti Godown No. 28/27, Birhana Road, Kanpur) to respondent No. 2 (Shilpi Gupta) for Rs. 1.35 crores. Respondent No. 2 claimed paying Rs. 19 lakhs partly between June-September 2020, but failed to pay 25% advance by 15.09.2020; a Rs. 10 lakhs cheque bounced.[2][3][4] Appellants urged completion via registered sale deed through messages, but it did not occur. Appellants sold the property on 03.09.2021 for Rs. 90 lakhs due to changed circumstances, claiming Rs. 45 lakhs loss.[5][6] No civil suit was filed by either party.[7]

Procedural History: Respondent No. 2's Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application and subsequent complaint were dismissed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur, as civil matters on 26.04.2022 and 14.07.2023.[7][8] She then lodged FIR on 22.07.2023 under IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 354 (assault/outraging modesty), 504 (insult), 506 (criminal intimidation).[9] Anticipatory bail granted to appellants; charge-sheet filed 12.09.2023.[10][11] Magistrate took cognizance and summoned appellants on 17.01.2024 despite prior dismissals.[12] High Court dismissed Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition on 09.05.2024.[13]

Key Holdings: - Summoning orders must not be issued lightly; courts must apply caution, especially in civil disputes like breach of contract, ensuring complaint/charge-sheet discloses offense with material supporting essential ingredients (e.g., mens rea/dishonest intent at contract inception for Sections 420/406 IPC). (!) - No criminal offenses made out: Dispute is purely civil (breach of oral sale agreement, non-refund, resale at loss); FIR/charge-sheet lack material/evidence on investigation findings to prove cheating (no dishonest inducement/deception at outset), breach of trust (no entrustment/fiduciary relation), or other sections (no intent to alarm/insult via threats).[14][15][16][17][20][21][24] (!) (!) (!) - Charge-sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is incomplete/vague, merely repeating FIR without particulars/evidence for cognizance under Section 190 or summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C.[23][24] - Criminal process cannot pressure civil remedies; prevalent view that civil suits are time-consuming must be rejected to uphold rule of law. (!)

Result: Proceedings quashed; no observations on civil rights of parties.[25][26] Costs of Rs. 50,000 imposed on State of Uttar Pradesh (payable within 6 weeks, recoverable from delinquent officers); copy to Chief Secretary.[27][28] No costs on respondent No. 2 due to possible wrong advice.[29]