Bhuwan Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand and another

Judgment

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. 0242/2019 dated 21.12.2019 registered at Police Station Lalkuwan, District Nainital, under Sections 420, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC). The FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2, Chintamani Tiwari, alleging cheating, criminal intimidation, and intentional insult. The applicant further seeks quashing of the subsequent charge sheet No. 166/2020 dated 26-06-2020 and the cognisance/summoning order dated 02-12-2020 passed by the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, in Criminal Case No. 7460/2020.

2. The dispute arises from a land transaction between the applicant, Bhuwan Chandra, and respondent no. 2, Chintamani Tiwari. The applicant sold a plot of land measuring 1400 sq. ft., recorded in Khasra No. 119 of Village Halduchaud Jaggi, to respondent no. 2 vide a registered sale deed dated 08-04-2016 for a consideration of Rs. 5,01,000/-. Respondent no. 2 alleged that the applicant knowingly sold Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1858 of 2021--------Bhuwan Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J. 1 him a plot of land which was recorded as a "bandobasti rasta" (settlement path) in the revenue records, rendering the sale fraudulent.

3. Respondent no. 2 filed a mutation case under Sections 34- 35 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, before the Tehsildar, Lalkuan, which was dismissed on 30-10-2019 on the grounds that the land in question was a settlement path and hence not transferable. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 lodged the FIR alleging that the applicant had cheated him by misrepresenting the nature of the land and had failed to refund the money despite demands.

4. The investigation culminated in a charge sheet under Section 420 IPC, and the Magistrate took cognisance of the offence. The applicant contends that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that the criminal proceedings are an abuse of the legal process.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire dispute arises out of a bona fide civil transaction concerning the sale of a piece of land, which has been wrongfully given a criminal colour. It is contended that the applicant executed a registered sale deed on

08.04.2016 in favour of the complainant after receiving the full and final consideration amount of ₹5,01,000/-. The possession of the land was also duly handed over at the time of registration, and the sale was conducted in the presence of the Deputy Registrar. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1858 of 2021--------Bhuwan Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J. 2

7. It is further argued that the complainant was fully aware of the nature and status of the property at the time of the transaction. The objections regarding the land being a public pathway were raised only after the complainant failed to get the mutation done in his favour, which was the result of a revenue-related technicality rather than any fraudulent conduct on the part of the applicant.

8. The applicant’s counsel asserts that even if any breach exists, it is civil in nature and does not constitute a criminal offence under Section 420 IPC. It is argued that no cheating or dishonest inducement ingredients, as defined under the penal law, are made out of the facts or the evidence collected during the investigation. The present proceedings are alleged to be a misuse of criminal process and an attempt to pressurise the applicant for personal gain. On these grounds, the applicant prays for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings.

9. Learned counsel for the State opposes the present application and submits that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law, and sufficient material was collected to justify the filing of the charge sheet against the applicant under Section 420 IPC. It is contended that the applicant knowingly sold land that is recorded as a bandobasti rasta (public pathway) in the revenue records, thereby deceiving the complainant and dishonestly inducing him to part with a substantial sum of ₹16,10,000/-.

10. The State further asserts that the revenue authorities rightly denied the mutation due to the nature of the land, and that the applicant failed to return the consideration amount despite repeated Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1858 of 2021--------Bhuwan Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J. 3 demands. Instead, he allegedly threatened the complainant with dire consequences when confronted. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from the complainant and other witnesses support the version that the sale was made with full knowledge of the land’s legal defects.

11. It is also submitted that the matter cannot be treated as a mere civil dispute, as the applicant’s conduct clearly discloses dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, thereby attracting the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. Accordingly, it is prayed that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be dismissed.

12. At this juncture, this Court finds that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed for the reasons discussed hereunder.

13. The allegations against the applicant arise from a registered sale deed executed on 08.04.2016 in favour of the complainant, whereby a piece of land situated at Halduchaud Jaggi, Khasra No. 119M, admeasuring 1400 square feet, was sold by the applicant to the informant. It is the case of the informant that the applicant, while executing the said deed, knowingly concealed the fact that the land in question was recorded as a public pathway (bandobasti rasta) in the revenue records and thus could not have been sold. It is further alleged that the applicant accepted a sum of ₹16,10,000/- as sale consideration, out of which only part was formally acknowledged, and the rest remained unrecorded. Subsequent to the execution of the deed, the informant was unable to get the land mutated in his name owing to the said defect in title, and the applicant Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1858 of 2021--------Bhuwan Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J. 4 not only failed to refund the amount but also allegedly threatened the informant and his family with dire consequences when confronted.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that all consideration was paid and possession was handed over at the time of execution of the deed. It is further argued that the FIR is an abuse of process and seeks to convert a civil dispute into a criminal one, with no ingredients of cheating or forgery being established.

15. However, upon consideration, this Court is unable to accept the submission of the applicant. It is evident from the investigation material, including statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that there are specific allegations that the land in question was recorded as a public pathway, a fact allegedly known to the applicant. It is also alleged that the applicant received an amount in excess of what was stated in the registered deed, thereby giving rise to serious doubts as to the bona fides of the transaction. The assertion that possession was not delivered, combined with the revenue court's order denying mutation, further supports the complainant’s version. The allegations, if proved, could attract the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, as well as criminal intimidation and other allied offences.

16. Whether the applicant had the requisite mens rea or whether the land could legally be transferred are all questions of fact that can only be examined upon trial. This Court cannot, at the present stage, in the limited jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., enter into such disputed factual determinations or conduct a mini-trial. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1858 of 2021--------Bhuwan Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J. 5 applicant seeks to establish that he had clean hands and acted in good faith; however, such defences are to be evaluated by the trial court after the evidence is led and not at the stage of summoning or framing of the charge.

17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held, including in State of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others Criminal Appeal No. 330 OF 2021, that criminal proceedings should not be interfered with at the threshold unless the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence. In the present case, this Court is satisfied that there is sufficient material on record that, if accepted as accurate, discloses a prima facie case against the applicant.

18. This Court finds no justifiable reason to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the allegations disclosed in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation warrant adjudication through trial. ORDER In view of the detailed observations made hereinabove, the application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Dated: 16.05.2025 ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Ashish Naithani, J. 6 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1858 of 2021--------Bhuwan Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J.