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.

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 was thereafter challenged by way of a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed vide order dated 05.02.2020, whereby the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Consequent to the remand, further proceedings were conducted before the revenue authorities and writ and review petitions were filed, resulting in interim orders restraining the alienation of the disputed property. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 26.11.2024.

4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature, arising out of agreements to sell and has been given a criminal colour to exert pressure. It is contended that they had agreed to sell only their undivided shares as co-khatedars and never represented that the land had been finally partitioned or was free from dispute. Learned counsel submits that the final decree dated 11.12.2012 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, was very much in existence on the date of the agreements and had not been stayed and mere pendency of revenue proceedings or subsequent remand does not render reference to such a decree false or deceptive. It is argued that challenging the SDM order and entering into agreements during the pendency of such a challenge does not ipso facto constitute the offence of cheating.

5. It is further contended that respondent No.2 had full knowledge of the partition disputes, had purchased shares from other khatedars and had himself moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the Board of Revenue to be impleaded as a party; therefore, the allegation of concealment or dishonest inducement is unfounded. The FIR does not disclose any specific incident showing dishonest inducement at the time of execution of the agreements, and mere non-execution of the sale deed or pendency of revenue litigation cannot give rise to criminal liability.

6. Thus, it is argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings in the present case would be an abuse of the process of law, as the allegations overwhelmingly disclose a civil dispute which has been given a criminal colour. For these reasons, the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of the same may be quashed.

7. Contrarily, it is c