IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S. Shekhawat, J.
Deepak Dagar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No. 52617 of 2022
Decided On : 13-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the alleged fraudulent transactions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments discussing the nature of the claims and allegations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal foundations regarding misuse of criminal proceedings. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 4. court’s decision to quash the fir based on civil nature of dispute. (Para 12 , 16) |
Judgment
Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the FIR No. 430 dated 06.08.2022 under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Nuh, District Nuh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the complaint moved by Somesh Mittal son of Vinod Mittal. In the FIR (Annexure P-1), the complainant had levelled the following allegations separately:-
(i) Deepak Dagar, petitioner No. 1/accused was the owner in possession of 121 Kanals 14 Marlas of land at village Uzina, Tehsil and District Nuh in view of the agreement to sell in his favour. In fact, Shiv Om, Hari Om and Kapil sons of Ranbir Singh had executed an agreement in favour of Deepak Dagar. On 26.07.2021, Deepak Dagar agreed to sell the said 121 Kanals 14 Marlas of land to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 4,18,34,375/- and executed an agreement to sell in favour of the complainant and received a sum of Rs. 75 lacs by way of cheques and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The last date for execution of the sale deed was fixed to be 30.10.2021. As per the terms of the agreement, Deepak Dagar had agreed to clear the bank loan and also agreed to get the registered sale deed executed in favour of the complainant.
(ii) Deeapk Dagar and Sunil Tewatia, petitioners No. 1 and 3/accused were the owners in possession of 128 Kanals, 18 marlas, 5 Sarsai land at village Uzina, Tehsil and District Nuh in view of the registered sale deed No. 6276 dated 20.03.2020. On 26.07.2021, the petitioners No. 1 and 3 had agreed to sell the land for a sum of Rs. 5,31,81,562/- and out of the said amount, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 80 lacs to the petitioners No. 1 and 3 and remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the registered sale deed and the last date for registration of the sale deed was fixed on 30.10.2021.
(iii) Geeta Devi and Neelam Tewatia, petitioners No. 2 and 4/accused were the owners in possession of 93 Kanals 07 Marlas and 7 Sarsai of land at village Uzina, Tehsil and District Nuh in view of registered sale deed No. 6277 dated 20.03.2020. Both the petitioners No. 2 and 4 had agreed to sell the said land for a sum of Rs. 3,85,21,312/- in favour of the complainant vide agreement to sell dated 26.07.2021 and the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 60 lacs to the petitioners No. 2 and 4 on the said day and the last date for execution of the sale deed was fixed on 30.10.2021. Even, the remaining amount of sale consideration was to be paid by the complainant to the petitioners No. 2 and 4.
(iv) As per the complainant, there was holiday on 30.10.2021, 31.10.2021 and 01.11.2021. However, the accused/petitioners No. 1 to 4 did not execute the registered sale deeds in favour of the complainant even after receiving such a huge amount. Later on, the accused started issuing legal notices to the complainant with a view to misappropriate the amount handed over by the complainant to the petitioners/accused. Even, the accused had not cleared the bank loan nor they made any payments to their respective sellers. Apart from that, Shiv Om, Hari Om and Kapil sellers of the petitioners had colluded with the petitioners and wrongly sold the land measuring 121 Kanals, 14 Marlas and 4 Sarsai in favour of M/s Ellixir Infra A 261 Defence Colony, New Delhi and the complainant side had cheated the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the present case, it has been alleged that the petitioners had allegedly executed thr
Criminal proceedings cannot proceed where allegations only constitute a civil dispute without intent to cheat.
Civil disputes should not be framed as criminal offences when no fraudulent intent is evident, as it constitutes an abuse of legal processes.
The court found that a civil dispute may constitute a criminal offence under S.420 IPC if fraudulent intent is present, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not warrant quashing criminal pro....
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for mere breach of contract; there must be evidence of fraudulent intent from the outset for an offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.
Registration of FIR for civil disputes under criminal guise is unsustainable; courts must prevent misuse of criminal law.
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.