The main legal point established is that criminal complaints cannot be quashed solely on the ground of civil nature of allegations, and the probity of the allegations should not be tested at the nascent stage.

ORDER :

1. All these three Criminal Misc. Petitions arise out of the same FIR and have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 134 of 2021 registered under Sections 406, 420, 385, 120B of IPC.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to on the basis of their actual placement in the police case. Petitioners Shyam Kumar Jalan (A3) and Anil Jalan (A2) in Cr.M.P 1775 and 1532 of 2021 respectively claim themselves to be the land owners and Anil Agarwal (A1) in Cr.M.P-1542/21 as the developer.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that Anil Agarwal (A1), Anil Jalan (A2) and Shyam Jalan (A3) offered to sell five shops to the informant in their upcoming shopping complex. Out of which possession of only three shops was handed over and the possession of two shops was not given. It is alleged that the accused persons with the help of anti-social elements demanded Rs. 5 Lakh for giving possession over two shops in shopping complex under name Shelter Arcade at Maiki Road. These shops were allotted in the name of Anshul Enterprises of the informant. Shyam Kumar Jalan and Anil Jalan are the land owners and Anil Agarwal is the developer and the constructions being done on partnership basis.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused Anil Jalan (A2) and Shyam Kumar Jalan (A3) that they are the land owner and had entered into a development agreement with Anil Agarwal and had no agreement with the informant for sale of the said shops to the informant. The petitioner has not received any advance nor consideration amount from the informant and in absence of the agreement of sale with the informant or any financial transaction with him, the offence will not be made out in view of the ratio decided in (2005) 13 SCC 699 and (2006) 6 SCC 669. It is further submitted that A3 has lodged FIR against the Builder and the Developer (A3) as he had no authority to sell or enter into any agreement for sale of the property until the completion of the construction project.

5. It is submitted by the learned APP assisted by learned counsel on behalf of the informant that on the basis of the allegations and averments made in the FIR, a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. It is further submitted that the investigation is still pending and the witnesses have supported the case of payment of huge sum of more than three crores. Despite the lapse of time, possession over the shops was not given to the informant, nor the sale deed was executed. Reliance has been placed on Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350 in which it has been held that the correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

6. The scope of judicial scrutiny while hearing a petition for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding at the nascent stage is a limited one. The main consideration at this stage is to see whether the proceedings have been initiated maliciously for an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The court cannot enter into a roving enquiry to test the probity of the allegations made and it should not be exercised to stifle genuine legitimate prosecution.

7. It has been argued at length on behalf of the petitioner that there is no agreement of sale on record and as per the case of the informant out of 5 only 3 shops have been handed over to him. This will go to show that there was no intention to deceive from the incep