The allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence under IPC Sections 406 and 420, as they lack essential elements of criminal intent, reflecting a civil dispute instead.

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

1. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR No. 35/2016 registered at PS Kotwali, District Banswara for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the a complaint has been filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, alleging that the petitioner committed offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. He claimed that he purchased a property measuring 28.6x70 sq. feet (totaling 1995 sq. feet) along with a constructed house at Mohan Colony, Ghatol Road, Banswara, through a registered sale deed dated 10.07.2012 for Rs. 35 lakhs from the petitioner and his deceased brother, Kaushal Pathak. He further stated that possession was handed over to him in the presence of witnesses. However, the petitioner allegedly re- entered the property under false pretexts, despite the sale deed confirming full payment and possession. For this reason, the complainant filed an FIR.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence under Section 420 or 406 of IPC is made out since possession was retained with the complainant’s consent and was not forcibly taken. He also claimed that the complainant executed another sale deed for an adjacent but undivided portion of the property in his own favor through the widow of the petitioner’s deceased brother. Additionally, a civil suit for specific performance is already pending, with no interim relief granted. The petitioner contended that the FIR is an attempt to exert undue pressure, leaving him with no choice but to seek its quashing. The dispute is purely civil in nature, as the complainant has already filed a suit for specific performance before the competent civil court. The petitioner has also moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which is pending consideration. Notably, no interim injunction was granted in favor of the complainant, and only after this, the complainant resorted to filing the present FIR. This act demonstrates an attempt to give a civil dispute the color of a criminal offense, which is impermissible in law. Mere allegations of breach of contract do not constitute a criminal offense, and the appropriate remedy for the complainant lies in civil proceedings, not in a criminal case. Therefore, given the baseless and malicious nature of the FIR, it deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.

4. Learned public prosecutor and counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel of the petitioner. Learned public prosecutor has placed on record the factual report dated 03.01.2018 for the perusal of this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the FIR impugned and factual report alongwith other material made available to this Court.

6. After perusing the record and pondering upon the submissions and materials made available to the Court, prima facie, it is revealed that the matter relates to a dispute regarding a plot purchased by the complainant from the petitioner and his brother. However, the possession of which was still with the petitioner and he was still living there as per the factual report presented in the Court. The complainant filed this petition because the petitioner entered the property and is claiming possession of that land.

7. Here, the question for adjudication before this Court comes that whether the act alleg