IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, J.
Ifikhar Khan Salaria & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Station House Officer & Anr. – Respondents
CRM (M) No. 891 of 2021
Decided On : 06-04-2023
FIR Quashing - Property Dispute - IPC 420, 448 - Agreement to Sell, Rent Deed - Sections 420, 448 IPC - The court discussed the essential ingredients of the offences under sections 420 and 448 IPC and emphasized that the criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes. The court highlighted that the allegations, even if taken at face value, amounted to a breach of contract and not cheating. The court also clarified that the permissive possession under an agreement to sell does not constitute criminal trespass under section 448 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR filed by Respondent No. 2 for offences under sections 420 and 448 IPC, related to a property dispute. The petitioners claimed to have possession of the property under an agreement to sell, while Respondent No. 2 alleged non-payment and trespassing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations, even if true, amounted to a breach of contract and not cheating. It also determined that the permissive possession under the agreement to sell did not constitute criminal trespass.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the FIR and the applicability of sections 420 and 448 IPC in a property dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the essential ingredients of the offences under sections 420 and 448 IPC were not established, and emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, clarifying that its decision did not affect any other civil or criminal proceedings between the parties.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the husband and wife respectively, for quashing the FIR bearing No. 56/2021, dated 03.11.2021 for commission of offences under sections 420 and 448 IPC registered with Police Station, Peer Mitha, Jammu registered by Respondent No. 1 at the instance of Respondent No. 2. It is stated that the Respondent No. 2 was known to the petitioners and she is an NRI residing in London. The agreement to sell with regard to single storey house constructed over the land measuring 30'x35' bearing No. 32, Mohallah Jatkatian, Jammu was executed between Petitioner No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 on 28.09.2019 and as per agreement to sell (supra), the possession of the house was handed over to the petitioner No. 2. It is further stated that Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Special Power of Attorney by Respondent No. 2 to contest the civil suit that was ultimately dismissed on 30.12.2020. Respondent No. 2 on the same date i.e. 28.09.2019 when the agreement to sell was executed between Petitioner No. 2 and Respondent No. 2, also executed a rent deed in favour of Petitioner No. 2 with regard to the same property. Yet another agreement to sell dated 20.11.2020 was executed between Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 2 and as per said agreement to sell, it was mutually agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- shall be paid by the Petitioner No. 2 to Respondent No. 2 at the time of registration of sale deed. The Petitioner No. 1 claims that they have started the renovation of the house and further claim that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been spent to make it habitable. In the month of January, 2021, the Respondent No. 2 started impressing upon the petitioners to transfer the balance amount immediately to her account. The Petitioner No. 1 further claims to have tried his best to persuade the Respondent No. 2 to understand that the balance amount is to be payable only at the time of execution of the sale deed in terms of agreement to sell but Respondent No. 2 threatened the petitioners that in case the balance payment is not deposited, then she would throw them out of the property and find a new buyer.
2. The petitioners have further stated that negotiations continued between the Respondent No. 2 and the petitioners and even a meeting was fixed in the office of IGP, Jammu, the petitioners showed all the documents to IGP, Jammu and were even having a cheque of Rs. 12,00,000/- with them to show their intention to adhere to the agreement to sell, but Respondent No. 2 was adamant and wanted the balance amount without execution of the sale deed. After the aforesaid meeting, the Respondent No. 2 threatened the petitioners of their dispossession from the house that prompted the Petitioner No. 2 to file a civil suit for injunction against the Respondent No. 2, which is sub judice before the court of the learned Sub Judge, Jammu. The learned Sub Judge, Jammu vide order dated 09.02.2021 has restrained the Respondent No. 2 and her brother from interfering into the peaceful possession of the Petitioner No. 2 qua the house mentioned above, but despite that Respondent No. 2 continued to threaten the petitioners with dire consequences including dispossession. Apprehending their imminent eviction despite the restraint order issued by the learned Sub Judge, the Petitioner No. 2 laid a motion before Sub Judge, Jammu for implementation of the interim directions as issued vide order dated 09.02.2021 and the court of learned Sub Judge, Jammu vide order dated 03.11.2021 directed In-charge, Police Station, Peer Mitha, Jammu to implement the order dated 09.02.2021. It is further averred that the moment the order dated 03.11.2021 was forwarded to Respondent No. 1, impugned FIR was registered by Respondent No. 1 at the instance of Respondent No. 2 on the same date.
3. The petitioners in view of the above facts, have impugned the FIR bearing No. 56/2021 for commission of offences under sections 42
Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B.
P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narahyana
Criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes, and the essential ingredients of criminal offences must be established for the charges to be valid.
Criminal proceedings cannot proceed where allegations only constitute a civil dispute without intent to cheat.
The intention to cheat must exist at the very inception for a breach of contract to amount to cheating. Giving civil disputes the color of criminal disputes for a relatively fast relief in criminal c....
FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise....
A mere breach of contract does not preclude a finding of criminal cheating; fraud must be established at the agreement's inception.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.