IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-54194-2025 Date of decision: 15.10.2025 AMANPREET KAUR @ AMANPREET NAT ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG Punjab.

Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the complainant.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.82 dated 12.09.2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Mulepur, Fatehgarh Sahib.

2. On 24.09.2025, following order had been passed: - “ Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.82 dated 12.09.2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Mulepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner in connivance with co-accused have committed cheating by failing to honour the agreement to sell and by executing the sale deed in favour of third party. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that it is the complainant himself who has failed to perform the part of the agreement. It is further argued that the petitioner specially returned from the USA on 12.08.2025 to execute the sale deed and remained present before the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, on 14.08.2025 from 9:00 am. to 5:00p.m, however, the complainant did not appear. In support of this argument, he has placed on record Annexure P-4 i.e. affidavit submitted before the SubRegistrar to mark her presence. He further argued that a legal notice dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) was also sent to the complainant declaring that the earnest money stood forfeited and the agreement to sell dated 20.12.2024 stood cancelled and subsequently, the petitioner along with her mother had sold the property to a third party, vide sale deed dated 11.09.2025. It is submitted that the present FIR is abuse of process of law and the matter is of civil nature. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of ‘Sharif Ahmed and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another’ 2024 INSC 363, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"…. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged”. Further, reliance is also placed upon in the case of ‘Jayshree and another vs. State of Rajasthan and another’ (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1640-1641 of 2024, decided on 02.07.2024), wherein it was held as under: "Prima facie, in our opinion, breach of contract does not amount to an offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the IPC unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. This Court has time and again cautioned against converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."

Notice of motion.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and seeks time to file status report in the matter.

At this stage, Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate and Mr. Dev Ahlawat, Advocate have put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant and filed Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. He, while opposing the petition for anticip