HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.869 of 2021 Rajesh Kumar and Another ………Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and Anothe r ………Respondents Mr. Sanpreet Singh Azmani, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, AGA for the State/respondent no.1.

Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Advocate for respondent no.2.

Judgment Reserved on 10.09.2025 Judgment deliverved on 28.11.2025 Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Ora l)

By means of present C-482 application, applicants have put to challenge the charge-sheet dated 15.02.2021 (Annexure-7) & cognizance order dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure-8) passed by Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar and further to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No.159 of 2021, State vs. Rajesh Kumar & Another, under Sections 420, 406, 504 & 506 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are the owners of some land situated at Village Ganguwala, Kashipur Road, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar admeasuring 1.682 hectare. In the year 2016, the applicants executed an agreement to sale in favour of respondent no.2 who is a property dealer. The said agreement was executed on 18.02.2016 and the aforesaid property was agreed to be sold at consideration of Rs.7 crores and the time period for the entire sale was three years. Thereafter, around 80% of the sale consideration was paid by respondent no.2 to the applicants, but only around 50% of the aforesaid property was sold. Thereafter, a dispute arose and respondent no.2 lodged an FIR dated 07.05.2020 against the applicants at Police Station Jaspur, District U.S. Nagar, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC and in pursuance thereof, a charge-sheet dated 15.02.2021 was filed by the Investigation Agencies and a case titled as Criminal Case No.159 of 2021, State vs. Rajesh Kumar and others was registered. The learned trial court took cognizance against the applicants. Hence, this application.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the case is entirely civil in nature and is lodged by respondent no.2 to pressurize the applicants. Respondent no.2 had earlier on the same set of fact filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the learned trial court was pleased to dismiss it for want of prosecution and this fact was concealed by respondent no.2 in lodging the present FIR. He further submits that civil litigation is also pending with respect to the disputed property and this fact is also concealed in the FIR. He states that in the proceedings of aforesaid 156(3) Cr.P.C. application, the police authorities had filed a report that the matter alleged is civil in nature and the parties are long term partners. But, surprisingly in the FIR based on same set of facts, the police has mechanically and without proper investigation submitted the impugned charge-sheet and the learned trial court without application of mind has taken cognizance against the applicants.

4. The learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argues that the entire dispute is based upon unregistered agreement to sale and there are no ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Therefore, no criminal prosecution can be launched against the applicants. He further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again depreciated criminal colour being given to civil disputes. He relied upon the judgment of Rikhab Birani and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/State relying upon his counter affidavit submitted that during the course of investigation and on the basis of statements of witness to the agreement it came to light that the applicants had received 80% of the sale consideration, but had refused to register 50% of the land which was agreed to be sold to respondent no.2. Therefore, on the basis of investigation and statements of witnesses under Section 161