IMPORTANT POINT
Direction for Police investigation – Before complainant chooses to adopt remedy under Section 156(3) of CrPC, he must exhaust his remedies under sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Rakesh Kainthla, J.—The present petitions have been filed against the order dated 10.6.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

2. Since all the petitions have arisen out of the common order, they are being taken up together for consideration.

3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the applicant, Sanjiv Kumar Sharma, filed an application before the learned Trial Court seeking a direction to the Police of Police Station Kala Amb to register an FIR against the accused. It was asserted that accused Nos. 1 and 2, along with their mother, late Smt. Leela Kumari were the owners in possession of the land measuring 232-14 bighas, comprised in Khata/Khatuni No. 1min/1min, Khasra No.181/86, 182/86 and 470/85, situated at Mohal Ogli, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., as per the Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001. Accused No.2 and 3 inherited the estate of Leela Kumari based on the Will executed by her. Accused No. 2 was acting as a General Power Attorney of Smt. Leela Kumari and he executed various agreements, receipts and sale deeds on her behalf. The accused entered into an agreement to sell the land to the applicant on 29.11.2004 in the presence of Arun Kumar Singla. This agreement was duly attested by Purshotam Singh Saini, Notary Public. The accused handed over the possession of the entire land to the applicant as per the agreement. The applicant also sold some portion of the land to third parties who developed and set up the industries. The applicant paid a total sale consideration of ¹ 1,49,66,250/- to the accused. The applicant also spent money on the development of the land. He requested the accused to execute the sale deed, and a sale deed of 126.16 bigha out of the total land measuring 230-05 bigha was executed in favour of the applicant. The accused promised to execute the sale deed of the remaining portion of the land measuring 103-09 bigha. The applicant asked the accused repeatedly to execute the sale deed, but they put off the matter on one pretext or another. The accused No.2 entered the land in February 2024 with many persons and threatened the applicant and his labourers to leave the land. The applicant thereafter requested accused Nos. 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed in his favour, but they put off the matter. The applicant also filed a civil suit in the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Nahan, which is pending. The accused belongs to the ruling party. The applicant approached the Director General of Police with the complaint, who forwarded it to Superintendent of Police, Sirmour, H.P., for investigation. An enquiry was conducted but no case was registered. Hence, the applicant filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) for taking action against the accused as per the law.

4. Learned Trial Court held that mere pendency of the civil suit is no ground for not initiating criminal proceedings. Mere failure to execute the sale deed does not amount to cheating unless there is an intention to defraud the other party from the beginning. There is no allegation that any document was forged. The allegations in the application disclosed the commission of offences punishable under Section 329(3), 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Hence, the application was forwarded to the SHO for the registration of the FIR and the proper investigation.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court and the registration of the FIR, three separate petitions have been filed.

6. I have heard Ms. Ashima Mandla, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Abhay Bahadur Singh and Ajay Bahadur Singh, Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused Sangram Singh, Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Karun Negi, le