Vandana Jain vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 207

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA
Vandana Jain – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv. Ms. Shradha Narayan, Adv. Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akshay Sahay, Adv. Mr. Ketan Priyadarshee, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Devvrat, AOR Ms. Harshita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mridu J. Mukherjee, Adv. Mrs. Irul Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Tamanna Khan, Adv. Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv. Mr. Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Subas Ray, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Case Summary

This is a Supreme Court of India judgment dated 25-02-2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 1127 of 2026 (arising from SLP (Crl) No. 6670/2021), titled Vandana Jain & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (!) (!) (!) . The appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a writ petition to quash FIR No. 0112/2021 registered under IPC Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467, 468 (forgery), and 471 (using forged document) (!) (!) .

Facts

Appellants (first party: Vandana Jain, Siddharth Jain, Kanishk Jain, and Divya Bhatia) entered a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 16.08.2010 with Respondent No. 2 (second party: Motor General Sales Ltd.) for developing Plot No. 61 (old No. 276A), Azad Nagar, Kanpur (1500 sq. yards) (!) . First party's contribution: land valued at ₹2.5 crores (50% share). Second party: construction costs, 50% share, and ₹1 crore security money (₹50 lakhs advance + balance within 3 months), adjustable from first party's sale proceeds, not refundable (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Project timeline: 2 years post-approvals (KDA plan sanction, possession handover) (!) (!) . JVA included arbitration clause for disputes (!) (!) . Project failed; FIR lodged 14.03.2021 (11 years later) alleging non-handover, non-refund, false title representation (suppressed litigation with Indira Devi Kanodia), and forged documents (!) (!) (!) .

Key Issues and Holdings

Nature of Dispute: Dispute purely civil, arising from JVA breach; criminal proceedings abuse of process. While FIR allegations taken at face value ordinarily, courts assess if civil dispute cloaked as criminal, considering FIR contents, admitted facts/documents (!) (!) (!) . No dishonest intent from inception (evident from 11-year delay) (!) .
Cheating (IPC 420): No false representation. JVA history accurate; no explicit "no litigation" statement. Assurances limited to no attachments/restraints/taxes on land, indemnity for title—none falsified. Litigation with Indira Devi (post-2000, KDA-related) not misrepresented (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Criminal Breach of Trust (IPC 406): Security money non-refundable, adjustable against first party's share. Non-fulfilment gives

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad¹[High Court] dated 30.07.2021 passed in Misc. Bench No. 16314 of 2021 whereby the writ petition of the appellants seeking quashing of FIR²[First Information Report] No.0112 of 2021, dated 14.03.2021, lodged at Police Station (for short, P.S.) Hazratganj, District Lucknow, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³[IPC], has been dismissed.

FACTS

3. Vandana Jain (appellant no. 1), Divya Bhatia, Siddharth Jain (appellant no.2) and Kanishk Jain (appellant no.3), described as first party, entered into a joint venture agreement⁴[JVA] dated 16.08.2010 with Motor General Sales Ltd. (Respondent No.2), described as second party. As per the terms and conditions of the JVA, the first party gave development rights to the second party for developing land i.e., Plot No. 61 (Old No. 276A), admeasuring 1500 Square Yards, bearing Municipal No. 3A/207 & 208, Azad Nagar, Kanpur. Under the agreement, the second party was required to construct residential units/apartments over the land at its own cost. The capital contribution of the first