Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Keli Devi, W/o Late Sh. Moduram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Now, Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking quashing of FIR No. 512/2020 dated 11.12.2020, registered at Police Station Christianganj, District Ajmer, for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC, along with all consequential proceedings, including the charge-sheet and the order of cognizance dated 26.11.2024.
2. The present dispute arises out of agreements to sell executed during the years 2017–2018 in respect of agricultural land situated at Village Kalidongri, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer, limited to the undivided shares of the petitioners in Khasra Nos. 78/2, 80/1, 81/13, 81/6, 81/2 and 92. The petitioners, being co-khatedars, initially executed agreements to sell in favour of respondent No.2 on 20.12.2017, followed by subsequent agreements dated 05.01.2018, in respect of their respective shares.
3. Prior thereto, partition proceedings relating to the said land had culminated in a decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which the Revenue Appellate Authority affirmed vide order dated 11.03.2015. The said decree w
Civil disputes may carry elements of criminal offenses; thus, courts must assess if sufficient grounds for criminal liability exist on a case-by-case basis.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, there must be fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and the absence ....
Criminal prosecution cannot arise from a breach of contract; such grievances are solely civil in nature, thus warranting quashing of the FIR.
Mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating under IPC; dishonest intent must be proven to establish criminal liability.
The court established that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offenses, allowing for quashing of FIRs when no criminal offense is disclosed.
Sale of undivided joint property share by co-sharers without dishonest intention at inception does not constitute cheating; third-party complainant lacks standing absent purchaser grievance; proceedi....
At the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused may be made out.
The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes, emphasizing that the FIR lacked allegations constituting a criminal offence and should be quashed.
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
