IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
Shivam And 3 Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondent
Application U/S 482 No.15400 of 2018
Decided on : 03-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of charge sheet for lack of evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. loan repayment details influence ownership transfer. (Para 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. transaction completion demonstrates no liability. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. opposition claims against applicants' repayment. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. sale deed stipulations regarding loan payment. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. no criminal liability in case of sale contract breach. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. criminal proceedings quashed based on repayment. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Vikram D. Chauhan, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. No one appears on behalf of Opposite party no.2.
2. By order dated 18.4.2024, Opposite party no.2 was proceeded ex- parte. On 29.7.2025 also no one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by Applicants for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 3.6.2017 in Criminal Case No.1702 of 2017, State Vs. Shivam and others , arising out of Case Crime No.107 of 2017, under Sections 406 , 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Badhapur, District Bijnor.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for Applicants that Applicant nos.1 and 3 are the real brothers. Applicant nos.2 and 4 are mother and father of Applicant nos.1 and 3. On 4.3.2017, present first information report was lodged by Opposite party no.2 against Applicants. It is alleged in first information report that informant Manju Tyagi and Manish Tyagi executed a sale deed in favour of Shivam Agarwal (Applicant no.1) on 6.4.2015 of agricultural land area 3.618 hectare situated at Mauja Bhajrawala Jagir, Pargana Badhapur, District-Bijnor including liability of agricultural debt. Shivam Agarwal and his father Hari Om Agarwal assured to pay the bank loan. On the same day i.e. 6.4.2015 his sister Monika Tyagi also executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Rashmi Agarwal of agricultural land, area 1.070 hectare situated at Mauja Ramdas Bairagai, Pargana Badhapur, District Bijnor including liability of agricultural loan upon the said land. Rashmi Agarwal, her husband Hari Om Agarwal and their son Lavi Agarwal assured to pay the aforesaid bank loan. The loan amount was Rs.9,65,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Badhapur. It is alleged that they have not paid the aforesaid loan amount.
5. Investigating Officer investigated the matter and has recorded the statement of the informant and witnesses of the fact, namely, Smt. Manju Tyagi-informant and witnesses Smt. Manisha Tyagi, Smt. Monika Tyagi, Mohit Tyagi and Satendra Tyagi under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against Applicants under Sections 406 , 120-B I.P.C. on 3.6.2017.
6. Learned counsel for Applicants submits that the father of opposite party no.2 and Monika Tyagi was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station-Kotwali, Najibabad, Bijnor in the year 2015. Applicants are businessmen and they are carrying business at Najibabad, Bijnor. The father of opposite party no.2 stated to Applicant no.1 to sell abovenoted agricultural land. He concealed the fact of loan amount, taken upon the said agricultural land. The Applicant no.1 trusted upon the father of opposite party no.2 and gave Rs.10 lacs as advance amount for purchasing the aforesaid agricultural land. Thereafter, the Applicant no.1 made a query from the revenue department and found that there is agricultural loan of Punjab National Bank upon the said agricultural land. The Applicant nos.1 and 3 requested to return the advance amount of Rs.10 lacs due to agricultural loan upon the aforesaid land. But the father of the opposite party no.2 denied to return the aforesaid advance amount.
7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Applicants that thereafter, Applicant no.1 had to compromise and got executed sale deed in his favour, executed by opposite party no.2 and her sister Manisha Tyagi and another sale deed in favour of his mother Smt. Rashmi Agarwal executed by another daughter of opposite part
In sale transactions, mere stipulations regarding loan payment do not establish criminal liability for breach of trust, especially where obligations are fulfilled and no dishonesty is shown.
Mere non-performance of an agreement to sell does not amount to criminal breaches, and civil remedies should be sought instead of criminal prosecution.
For an offence under Section 406 IPC, there must be entrustment of property and a fiduciary relationship; allegations of criminal breach of trust without these elements do not constitute a valid char....
The court determined that mere breaches of contract do not constitute criminal offences without proof of fraudulent intent, emphasizing that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal compl....
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 und....
Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC cannot co-exist in the same transaction; criminal breach of trust and cheating are distinct offences requiring different elements of fraud.
Offence of cheating - Quash of criminal complaint - There is no fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person induced to deliver any property to any person again same is not the case her – Court not....
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.