Sudhir Kumar S.K. Thakur v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr

Judgment

1. The present criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been instituted by the Applicant, Sudhir Kumar @ S.K. Thakur, seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated 03.07.2018 as well as the cognizance order passed in Case No. 8703 of 2018 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The case arises from Case Crime No. 111 of 2017, registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar.

The case, as set out in the First Information Report lodged by the Complainant, Shri Pratap Singh, is that the Complainant desired to purchase a piece of land situated at Khasra No. 1397, Village Salempur Mahdood, District Haridwar, measuring 234.20 square metres. The Applicant allegedly represented himself to be the owner in possession of the said land and entered into an agreement to sell the property to the Complainant for a total sale consideration of ₹50,00,000/-, out of which ₹20,00,000/- was paid in advance on 01.08.2012. The date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 28.02.2013. Criminal Misc. Application No.1753 of 2018, Sudhir Kumar @ S.K Thakur Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 1 Ashish Naithani J.

3. The Complainant alleged that despite repeated follow-ups and assurances, the Applicant failed to honour the agreement and instead got the land registered in favour of one Smt. Manju. It was further alleged that the said Manju was fraudulently represented as the Applicant's wife, and this act amounted to deliberate cheating and misappropriation. The FIR, however, came to be lodged on 28.04.2017, more than four years after the alleged cause of action and significantly, after the Complainant had already instituted a civil recovery suit in Delhi.

4. It is the specific case of the Applicant that the FIR is a malicious attempt to convert a purely civil dispute into a criminal prosecution, to exert undue pressure upon the Applicant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Shri Kailash Chandra, submitted that the Complainant, having failed to fulfil his part of the bargain by not arranging the balance sale consideration within the agreed timeline, sought multiple extensions, which were granted. Still, ultimately, the agreement stood frustrated due to the Complainant’s default. The sale deed could not be executed in his favour, so the Applicant exercised his right to deal with the property.

5. It was further submitted that the delay of over four years in lodging the FIR is unexplained and motivated, especially when a civil suit for recovery of the advance amount was already pending before the District Court in Delhi. This delay and simultaneous civil litigation reveal the mala fide intent behind initiating criminal proceedings. Learned Counsel contended that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC, particularly the existence of dishonest intention at the transaction's inception, are entirely absent from the FIR and charge sheet.

6. Learned Counsel relied on the law laid down in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the essential requirement to attract Criminal Misc. Application No.1753 of 2018, Sudhir Kumar @ S.K Thakur Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 2 Ashish Naithani J. Section 420 IPC is a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction. Without such mens rea, a mere breach of contractual obligation cannot give rise to criminal prosecution. It was urged that the facts of the present case fall squarely within this principle.

7. Additionally, it was submitted that the agreement to sell between the parties was unregistered and merely evidences a civil transaction. The Complainant's failure to seek specific performance or pay the required stamp duty renders the claim suspect. The Applicant also pointed out that the cognizance order passed by the learned Magistrate is devoid of any meaningful judicial reasoning and appears to be a routine, mechanical endorsement on a typed proforma, without application of mind to the material on record.

8. Conversely, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, Shri Shivam Raturi, opposed the application and submitted that the FIR discloses a clear case of deception and fraud. He contended that the Applicant misrepresented the ownership and transferred the property to a third party after receiving substantial advance money from the Complainant. It was argued that such conduct is not a mere breach of agreement but amounts to criminal cheating under Section 420 IPC.

9. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Applicant has taken inconsistent positions in different proceedings. While in the present application, he claims Smt. Nutan Thakur to be his wife, in the Delhi civil proceedings, he acknowledged Smt. Jai Shree as his spouse, and during the transaction with the Complainant, introduced Smt. Manju as his wife. This shifting narrative, according to the Respondent, reveals a pattern of concealment and deception, which reinforces Complainant’s claim of dishonest intention from the outset.

10. It was also contended that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not bar the initiation or continuation of criminal prosecution where the Criminal Misc. Application No.1753 of 2018, Sudhir Kumar @ S.K Thakur Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 3 Ashish Naithani J. same set of facts prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. In support of this submission, learned Counsel relied upon Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259, to argue that at the stage of framing or quashing, the Court is not required to examine the probability of conviction meticulously but merely to assess whether the allegations disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence.

11. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. At the core of the allegations lies an unregistered agreement to sell between the Complainant and the Applicant concerning a piece of land situated at Village Salempur Mahdood, Haridwar. Admittedly, ₹20,00,000/- was paid in advance, and the Complainant alleges that the Applicant failed to execute the sale deed and instead conveyed the property to a third party. The criminal case has been initiated under Section 420 IPC, alleging that the Applicant acted dishonestly and with fraudulent intent.

13. The gravamen of the charge under Section 420 IPC is cheating ,i.e., a deception practised with dishonest intention to induce the person deceived to deliver property or part with something of value. The sine qua non for invoking Section 420 IPC is the existence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized this distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating.

14. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168, the Hon’ble Court observed: “In determining the question, it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the accused's intention at the time of inducement, which may be judged by his subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not the sole test.” Criminal Misc. Application No.1753 of 2018, Sudhir Kumar @ S.K Thakur Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 4 Ashish Naithani J.

15. Similarly, in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, the Supreme Court quashed a cheating case arising out of a failed property transaction and observed that criminal proceedings cannot be used as an instrument of coercion in matters which are civil in nature.

16. In the present case, the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of more than four years from the alleged breach. It is not disputed that before lodging the FIR, the Complainant had already filed a civil recovery suit before the District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, seeking return of the advance amount. When read without any pleading or material to suggest that the Applicant had fraudulent intent when executing the agreement, this timing persuades this Court to conclude that the essential elements of cheating under Section 420 IPC are not attracted.

17. The agreement was unregistered and merely created a contractual obligation. The Complainant could have sought specific performance or damages under civil law, but chose instead to pursue parallel criminal proceedings after years of inaction. The existence of alternate remedies in civil law, by itself, is not a bar to criminal prosecution. However, where the complaint discloses a pure civil dispute and is filed manifestly to exert pressure, the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law.

18. The argument the Applicant acted fraudulently by representing different persons as his wife does not alter the legal position. These inconsistencies, even if assumed, are peripheral and not germane to the core requirement of dishonest inducement at the inception of the contract. Moreover, the Complainant has not pleaded Criminal Misc. Application No.1753 of 2018, Sudhir Kumar @ S.K Thakur Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 5 Ashish Naithani J. or demonstrated how he was deceived at the time of agreeing or that he was misled into parting with money by false representations as to ownership.

19. While taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate does not appear to have examined these legal requirements. The cognizanceordermerely records a formal satisfaction without reference to the material on record or the applicability of Section 420 IPC. Such mechanical cognizance, which borders entirely on civil law, calls for correction in exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

20. It is trite that the power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection. However, where allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of a cognizable offence, and where continuation of proceedings would amount to harassment and abuse of process, the High Court must step in to secure the ends of justice. The present case, in my considered view, falls squarely within the illustrative categories (1) and (7) laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out against the Applicant under Section 420 IPC. The allegations in the FIR, read with the chargesheet and other material on record, disclose a civil dispute which has been sought to be given a criminal colour. The continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The chargesheet

03.07.2018 summoning/cognizance order passed in Case No. 8703 of 2018, arising Criminal Misc. Application No.1753 of 2018, Sudhir Kumar @ S.K Thakur Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 6 Ashish Naithani J. from Case Crime No. 111 of 2017, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar, as against the Applicant – Sudhir Kumar @ S.K. Thakur – are hereby quashed. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:13.06.2025 NR/ NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d5 63d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce9f b, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897 BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3C8A15 9F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT Criminal Misc. Application No.1753 of 2018, Sudhir Kumar @ S.K Thakur Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 7 Ashish Naithani J.