The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in deserving cases, and the distinction between civil and criminal liabilities in commercial transactions must be considered.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this common judgment two petitions, one filed by the petitioners Fahmida Kouser and Mohd. Afzal Beigh (CRM(M) No. 855/2023) and the other filed by petitioner-Ab Rashid Beigh (CRM(M) No. 120/2024) are proposed to be disposed of.

2. All the three petitioners have challenged FIR No. 72/2023 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered with Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu. As per the impugned FIR, a complaint was lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2 with Crime Branch Jammu alleging therein that her husband had purchased a plot of land measuring 01 kanal in khasra No. 70 min from its owner through petitioner-Mohd. Afzal Beigh and constructed a house upon it. It is alleged in the impugned FIR that petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh represented to the complainant that he owns two more kanals of land adjacent to the aforesaid house of the complainant?s husband being its sole owner and that he is ready to sell it. Believing upon the representation of petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh, the complainant expressed her willingness to purchase said two kanals of land. Accordingly, the deal was settled between them for an amount of Rs. 2.25 crores and an agreement to sell dated 09.12.2020 was executed by the parties. It is alleged in the impugned FIR that an amount of Rs. 1.80 crores was paid by the complainant to petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh through various bank transactions/cash but he failed to hand over possession of the land to the complainant or to execute the sale deed in respect thereof. When the petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh avoided to hand over the possession of the land and to execute the sale deed, complainant/respondent No. 2 asked for her money and petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh issued five undated cheques amounting to Rs. 1.80 crores as guarantee. Petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh also executed an affidavit dated 28.09.2022 wherein he admitted having received an amount of Rs. 1.80 crores as part sale consideration.

3. In the FIR, it is further alleged that later on the complainant came to know that petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh is not the actual owner of the land in question and that agreement to sell dated 09.12.2020 is a fake document as the same has been executed by above-named petitioner with a view to defraud her. This was brought to the notice of petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh who, thereafter, provided a copy of the revenue extract which he had managed to get from the Revenue Department and it was clear that he was not the actual owner of the land in question. An affidavit was executed by petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh wherein he admitted having received an amount of Rs. 1.80 crores as also issuance of five cheques for an amount of Rs. 1.80 crores. He also agreed to refund the amount along with the penalty.

4. According to the complainant, the petitioner-Mohd Afzal Beigh had fraudulent intention from the very inception as he represented himself to be owner of the land in question though he was not. It is also alleged in the impugned FIR that an affidavit dated 27.03.2023 was forged by the above-named petitioner to show that the complainant had received back the whole amount though she had not received any amount. Thus, according to the complainant, the petitioners have defrauded her thereby causing wrongful loss to her and wrongful gain to themselves.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the impugned FIR came to be registered and the investigation of the case was set into motion. During investigation of the case, it appears from the perusal of the Case Diary, the Investigating Agency has recorded the statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case, the affidavits and the agreement to sell, reference whereof is made in the impugned FIR, have also been seized. The investigation is still in progress.

6. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR primarily on the ground that the transaction between them and respondent No. 2 was purely of a civil nature and merely because the pe