IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 58009 of 2025 DILIP SINGH YADAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Deependra Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Swatantra Pandey - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

ORDER This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.627/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Panna, District Panna (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with the charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that an FIR was lodged on

10.06.2024 alleging that the petitioner agreed to sell certain parcels of land bearing Khasra No.3293/1 (part, admeasuring 2 acres) and Khasra No.3299 (part, admeasuring 1 acre), total 3 acres, situated near NH-75 Satna-Panna Road, for a total consideration of Rs.76,75,000/-. An agreement to sell dated 05.05.2015 was executed upon payment of Rs.1,11,000/- as advance through cheque. It is alleged that despite repeated requests after 07.03.2024, the petitioner failed to execute the sale-deed and it later came to the knowledge of the complainant that a portion of the land had allegedly been contracted earlier to a third party in the year 2013. On these allegations, Crime No.627/2024 was registered for offence under Section 420 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of about nine years from the date of agreement dated 05.05.2015. The dispute, at its core, pertains to non- performance of an agreement to sell, which is purely civil in nature. There is no allegation showing dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, which is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 420 IPC. The proceedings are maliciously instituted to pressurize the petitioner. With the aforesaid, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations disclose commission of cognizable offence and the matter requires trial.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and material available on record.

6. On careful reading of Section 420 of IPC, the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC are as under:

1. Deception of any person;

2. Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver property; and

3. Existence of dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.

7. In the present case, the agreement to sell was executed on

05.05.2015. The advance amount was admittedly paid through cheque and encashed in the year 2015. The FIR has been lodged in June 2024, after approximately nine years. There is no specific averment in the FIR that at the time of execution of the agreement, the petitioner had a dishonest intention not to perform the contract. The allegations primarily relate to failure to execute the sale-deed and alleged prior agreement in respect of part of the land. Such dispute essentially arises out of contractual obligations.

8. Upon perusal of the FIR and the material collected during investigation, this Court finds that the gravamen of the allegation is that prior to execution of the agreement dated 05.05.2015 in favour of the complainant, the petitioner had allegedly executed an agreement in the year 2013 in respect of a portion of land bearing Khasra No.3293/1 in favour of one Rambhagat Patel. However, neither in the FIR nor in the charge-sheet is there any specific averment clarifying that the very same demarcated portion of land agreed to be sold to the complainant formed part of the earlier agreement. There is no description of boundaries, area specification, or revenue demarcation to establish identity