Civil disputes can involve criminal elements; thus, the existence of a civil remedy does not automatically justify quashing a criminal FIR.

JUDGMENT :

Sudesh Bansal, J.

1. Accused-petitioner has filed instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, seeking to quash FIR No.1097/2013 registered at Police Station JDA, Jaipur for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC along with entire proceedings of investigation in the impugned FIR.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that the FIR in question has been lodged by the complainant Mr. Ratanlal Agarwal (non-petitioner No.2 herein), feeling aggrieved by non performance of an agreement to sale dated 04.04.2013 by the petitioner. But after lodging the impugned FIR, the complainant himself filed a civil suit for specific performance on the basis of same agreement, bearing Civil Suit No.36/2014: Ratanlal Agarwal Vs. Durga Lal Verma & Ors., which has finally been decreed in favour of complainant vide judgment dated 25.05.2023 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan Ist. A copy of judgment dated 25.05.2023 has been placed on record. Learned counsel submits that in the judgment dated 25.05.2023, it has been held by the civil Court that petitioner agreed to sell his share in Plot No.47 (264 Sq. Yards) situated at Neelkanth Colony, Jaipur to complainant (plaintiff in civil suit) against sale consideration of Rs.75 lacs, out of which Rs.10 lacs (Rs.4 lacs cash and Rs.6 lacs by way of cheque) has been received by the petitioner and direction has been issued against the petitioner to perform the agreement dated 04.04.2013 in favour of plaintiff on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.65 lacs. Thus, counsel for petitioner submits that the grievance of complainant, as put forth in the FIR, has been resolved by the civil Court and in that view, the impugned FIR along with with investigation thereupon be quashed against the petitioner.

3. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that otherwise bare perusal of contents of the FIR itself, give rise to dispute of civil nature between parties and lodging of FIR to settle such civil dispute by way of putting the criminal law in motion, is abuse of process of law, therefore, on this count as well, the impugned FIR and investigation thereupon is liable to be quashed.

4. Counsel for petitioner has made an attempt to impress upon before this Court the factual aspect stating inter alia that in fact the deal to sell the plot in question was held against Rs.1.5 Crore and not against Rs.75 lacs, but the complainant acted with the petitioner in a conspirational manner and citing pretext of income tax issue, got executed two separate agreements to sale for Rs.75 lacs each, one is of 18.03.2013 in favour of his nephew namely Vijay Agarwal and another agreement dated 04.04.2013 in his favour. It has been contended that indeed complainant make assurance to pay full amount of Rs. 1.5 Crore to petitioner as also to settle the dispute with brothers of petitioner, by making payment to them separately, but later on, malice intention crept in mind of complainant and he sought to get extraneous advantage of his agreement dated 04.04.2013 and issued a notice dated 13.05.2013 to purchase the plot of petitioner only against Rs.75 lacs, that too after adjustment of Rs.10 lacs allegedly paid in advance, as incorporated in the agreement dated 04.04.2013. Indeed, deal to sale was held against Rs.1.5 Crore and only Rs.6 lacs vide cheque was given to the petitioner, therefore, petitioner, vide replied notice dated 18.05.2013, cancelled the agreement of complainant dated 04.04.2013 as also the agreement with complainant’s nephew Vijay Agarwal dated 18.03.2013 and forfeited the advance amount of Rs.6 lacs. It has been alleged that thereafter only, the complainant lodged the impugned FIR on 05.10.2013 and later on, filed a Civil Suit No.36/2014 on 18.02.2014 for specific performance of agreement dated 04.04.2013.

Narrating such backdrop of factual matrix, behind lodging of the impugned FIR, counsel for petitioner submits that registration of impugned FIR i