IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 7 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57417 of 2025 SOHIL KHAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri K K Chatuvedi, Advocate appeared for petitioner.

Shri Mohit Shivhare Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-

1].

ORDER This petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of FIR registered at Police Station Cantt, District Guna in Crime No. 0968/2025 for the offence under Section 318(4)

of BNS and all consequential proceedings.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.09.2025 an application was received from Mohammad Azhar Qureshi that on the basis of the said application, inquiry was conducted. During inquiry, the complainant stated that the accused Sohail Khan, sold to him land bearing Survey No. 864/15/2, area 0.2671 hectare (about 40,000 sq. ft.) and received Rs. 76,00,000/- from him. The said land was already mortgaged with Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Company and despite this fact, the accused sold the land by concealing material facts and by committing fraud and after receiving the amount, the accused neither gave possession of the land nor returned the money and also stopped responding to phone calls. The complainant produced copies of the agreement and mortgage documents during inquiry. The accused was called to appear before the police but he did not appear and was not found at his residence. After inquiry, the police found a prima facie case under Section 318(4) of BNS and accordingly FIR in Crime No. 0968/2025 was registered at Police Station Cantt, District Guna against the accused.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner and the complainant entered into a written agreement dated 10.03.2025 in respect of land bearing Survey No. 864/15/2, area 0.2671 hectare (40,000 sq. ft.). The petitioner had obtained the said property earlier by relinquishment deed. As per the agreement, the total sale consideration was Rs. 5,01,00,000/-. The complainant alleges that he paid Rs. 76,00,000/-, but there is no proof of payment. The agreement does not mention cheque number, bank details or mode of payment. The petitioner never received any such amount. It is further submitted that the complainant was already aware that the property was under loan with Capital & Housing Finance Company. The complainant himself cleared the loan and obtained NOC from the bank. The petitioner issued a registered legal notice dated 04.12.2025 to the complainant calling upon him to pay the remaining amount with proof and get the sale deed executed. The complainant did not comply with the said notice. It is submitted that the petitioner is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and execute the sale deed. The dispute is purely of civil nature arising out of an agreement to sell.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire dispute arises out of an agreement to sell. At best, it is a case of breach of contract and no criminal offence is made out. It has further been argued that there is no allegation or material to show that at the time of agreement the petitioner had dishonest intention and without dishonest intention from the beginning, offence under Section 318(4) BNS / Section 420 IPC is not made out. The complainant was already aware that the property was mortgaged. He himself cleared the loan and obtained NOC. Therefore, there was no concealment or fraud. It has been argued that the complainant has not filed any proof of payment of Rs. 76,00,000/-. The agreement also does not mention any details of such payment. The petitioner has already issued a legal notice calling upon the complainant to pay the balance amount and get the sale deed executed and this clearly shows bona fide intention. It has further been argued that instead of filing a civi