Criminal proceedings cannot arise from mere breach of contract; such disputes should be resolved through civil remedies, and misuse of criminal law for civil disputes is an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

(Partha Sarthy, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The petitioner has filed instant application praying for quashing the order dated 16.11.2022 passed in Goraul P.S. Case no. 10 of 2022 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Vaishali, Hajipur was pleased to take cognizance under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case as per the written statement dated 9.1.2022 of the opposite party no.2- informant addressed to the Officer In-charge of Goraul Police Station alleges inter alia that he resides in Patna and runs a coaching. It is stated that in course of his work, he became acquainted with the three accused persons including the petitioner herein. Slowly they became close to him. Subsequently the petitioner made a request to help him in the marriage of his daughter. The informant states that the petitioner took out a non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs. 1,000 and stated that he would execute an agreement for sale on the said document with respect to an immovable property measuring an area of 1200 sq ft. at the rate of Rs. 23.75 lakhs per katha. The informant states that being influenced with the talk of the petitioner, he gave an advance of Rs. 3.75 lakhs to the petitioner who executed an agreement for sale, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2. The informant further states that on the request by him to the petitioner to execute the sale deed, he asked for the balance of the total consideration amount of Rs. 23.75 lakhs. The informant gave a sum of Rs. 95,000/- on 22.7.2013, Rs. 3 lakhs on 9.9.2013 and again Rs. 3 lakhs on 21.9.2013. Thereafter, it is stated that he paid a further amount of Rs. 11 lakhs in cash on 12.2.2019 for which no document was prepared. The same was given in presence of witnesses Musfir Prasad Singh and Devendra Singh. Thus a total sum of Rs. 21.7 lakhs has been paid but the petitioner, inspite of request by the informant has refused to execute the sale deed pursuant to the said agreement for sale. Hence the instant FIR.

4. After investigation of the case, Chargesheet no. 43 of 2022 was submitted on 31.8.2022 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By order dated 16.11.2022 passed in Goraul P.S Case no. 10 of 2022, cognizance was taken by the learned trial Court. It is against this order taking cognizance that the instant application has been preferred.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Accepting the allegations as levelled in the FIR, the case at best as made out by the informant is one of breach of contract which cannot be permitted to give rise to a criminal proceeding by registration of the FIR. Referring to clause 3 of the agreement for sale (Annexure-2) between the parties, learned counsel submits that the same was valid for a period of six months and the total consideration amount of Rs. 23.75 lakhs had to be paid by the informant within the aforesaid period. Admittedly, there has been a breach of contract on part of the informant and it is for this reason that the advance amount stood forfeited as per the specific clause at page no.4 of the agreement. Learned counsel finally submits that the agreement for sale, violation of which is alleged, is of the year 2013 and the civil remedy of filing a suit etc of the informant having been barred in view of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, this FIR has been lodged more than 8 years later in the year 2022. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 1.3.2023 in Cr. Appeal no. 581 of 2023 (Sarabjit Kaur vs. the State of Punjab).

6. The application is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned