Mere non-performance of an agreement to sell does not amount to criminal breaches, and civil remedies should be sought instead of criminal prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by applicants to quash entire proceedings of Case Crime No.1717 of 2017, State Vs. Lalit Pundir, under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh pending in court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh pursuant to charge sheet dated 23.8.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 13.12.2018.

2. The opposite party no.2-Yogendra Singh is informant, who has lodged first information report on 15.10.017 at Police Station-Quarsi, District-Aligarh, under Sections 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C. against applicants. As per allegations in first information report, it is alleged by informant that informant entered into an agreement for sale of plot with applicant no.1-Lalit Pundir for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which, on 1.8.2012 from the account of elder brother of informant, namely, Oshveer Singh a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- was paid to applicant no.1 by cheque and a further amount of Rs.6,90,000/- was paid by cash.

3. It is also agreed that remaining amount would be paid at time of execution of sale deed. Cash was given infront of Devendra Kumar and Luv Kush in the year 2013. Applicant no.2-Rajesh went to Jaipur and, thereafter, informant asked applicant no.1 and applicant no.3 to execute the sale deed. However, aforesaid persons were delaying execution of sale deed on ground that when applicant no.2 would come from Jaipur they will execute the sale deed. On 23.7.2013 a sum of Rs.49,000/- was paid by cheque by applicants to informant. In January, 2014, when informant asked applicants for execution of sale deed, applicants have stated that same would be executed within 4-6 months. On 31.7.2017, they promise to execute the sale deed. On aforesaid date, when informant went to the house of applicants, the applicants have stated to come to Registry office and when informant reached Registry office and waited for applicants till 7.00 pm, informant went to house of applicants and asked as to why sale deed was not executed, applicants started abusing and threatened that if informant come to house of applicants they would physically assault informant. The applicants are neither returning the amount nor executing the sale deed.

4. In pursuance to aforesaid first informant report, statement of informant was recorded by Investigating Officer, who has supported prosecution story. The Investigating Officer has also recorded statement of witness Devendra Kumar, who has stated that deal was agreed upon for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which, Rs.3,10,000/- was given by cheque and Rs.6,90,000/- was given in cash and at the time of execution of sale deed Rs.5,00,000/- is required to be paid. The sale deed was not executed by applicants. The Investigating Officer has further recorded the statement of witness Luv Kush, who has also supported prosecution case. The Investigating Officer thereafter, submitted charge sheet on 23.8.2018 under Sections 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C. against applicants. In pursuance to aforesaid charge sheet, cognizance order has been issued on 13.10.2018 under Sections 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C.

5. This Court on 24.6.2019 issued notice to opposite party no.2- informant and by office report dated 27.9.2023 it is reported that notice has been served on opposite party no.2. On 2.1.2024, no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2. By order dated 12.11.2025, on account of non-appearance of opposite party no.2, this case was proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party no.2.

6. The prosecution case is to the effect that a sale transaction of a plot was agreed upon betwe