IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings should not be initiated for disputes that are fundamentally civil in nature, and the essential ingredients of the alleged offenses must be clearly established for prosecution under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. In the present case parties have negotiated to execute a sale deed with regard of certain plot. Complainant in pursuance of negotiation has paid some money in advance. After much negotiation finally a sale deed was executed by applicants in favour of wife of Complainant. However, the dispute remained about adjustment of some money.

2. It is further revealed from facts of present case that parties have further negotiated to execute another sale deed and finally a sale deed was prepared. However, again a dispute arose with regard to area of land. According to Complainant it ought to be 17x70 sq. ft. whereas as per applicants the area was about 8x70 sq. ft. and ultimately sale deed was not executed. It was alleged by Complainant that neither sale of larger area was executed nor money was adjusted nor it was returned back.

3. In aforesaid circumstances, Complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging above referred allegations and that when Complainant asked to applicants to return the money which was not adjusted, they extended threats.

4. Aforesaid application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was considered as a complaint and statement of Complainant as well as witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. Relevant statement of Complainant is reproduced hereinafter:

5. Trial Court concerned after considering statements passed impugned order dated 02.09.2023 under Section 204 Cr.P.C. whereby applicants have been summoned to face trial under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Relevant part of impugned order is reproduced hereinafter:

6. Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for applicants has vehemently urged that factum of transaction of money and sale deed is not under much dispute though according to Complainant money was paid to one, Vikas Sharma, who was not proposed as accused in complaint. Applicants have executed a sale deed which has not been disputed as well as there is no challenge to it. The controversy is with regard to second sale deed which was not executed mainly on ground that there was a dispute with regard to area of land. Learned counsel submitted that such dispute is within the realm of civil dispute. Ingredients of Sections 420 and 406 IPC are not made out. There is no dishonest intention on behalf of applicants nor there is any entrustment over any property by applicants. Applicants are still ready to execute sale deed of lesser area.

7. Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned AGA for State and Sri Rishi Kant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for Complainant, have opposed the aforesaid submissions. They submitted that since inception of negotiation applicants have intention to deceive and despite payment of large amount, sale deed with regard to corresponding area of land was not executed and money was also not returned back, though on basis of record it was undisputed that no complaint was made against Vikash Sharma, to whom Complainant has paid Rs. 20 lacs, which is the amount alleged to be not returned.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

9. Before adverting to rival submissions it would be relevant to refer few paragraphs of a recent judgement passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, as the facts of said case and discussion on law, would be relevant for consideration of present case :-

“9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited1 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus:

“12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated a