Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Tanmay Pathak S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Pathak – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
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
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.
The court held that allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating were not substantiated, as the dispute was of a civil nature, justifying the quashing of the FIR.
Failure to honour land sale agreement, with buyer aware of tenancy restrictions and advance returned, does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust absent dishonest intention at inception ....
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
The court reiterated that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is established, quashing the FIR due to lack of supporting evidence....
Civil disputes should not be framed as criminal offences when no fraudulent intent is evident, as it constitutes an abuse of legal processes.
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for disputes that are purely civil, especially where the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not met.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
